Printable View
uhm since it seems the popular choice to give a pinto a lighter flywheel to match it to the zetec out of ' fairness' why are these same people not suggesting giving the zetec the same open exhaust rules the pintos enjoy out of ' fairness' ? Cant have it both ways boys.
Stan,
I should have stayed away but since I opened this can of worms I guess I can't stop now.
As one of the two original authors of the zetec proposal four years ago I know very well what is in it, I also know full well that the CRB hasn't honored it. The CRB has been telling zetec owners "sorry it sucks to be you" for years now. As for CRB promises, I haven't seen you live up to one yet except to parts manufacturers.
My brother and I own a pinto car and a zetec car so your claim of self interest is absolutely false. I have skin in the game on both sides. What hurt the pinto guys is that $4k aluminum head you rammed down our throats. You'll have to explain how you were looking out for all us pinto owners when you obsoleted our heads and now to cover your mess we'll have to spend more money to upgrade our steel pintos with camshafts or whatever else you idiots come up with. So much for it being a copy of the steel head, so much for it not making more power. You are so full of it. You basically told every steel head pinto owner "it sucks to be you" because you were going to ensure the aluminum head was legal no matter what. I suggested the idea of the zetec superiority because I have no confidence the CRB will achieve any sort of parity and the steel head pinto guys have already been screwed by you. Doug will freak on you if the zetec is as good or better, that's the real reason you're against it. Don't act like you have the best interest of the pinto owners at heart. If you did you wouldn't have screwed up the aluminum head as bad as you did.
Since you went there, in terms of self interest and business practices I understand why you want to continue with new parts for the pinto, it's how you support your buddies businesses. On your watch you pushed through a $4k aluminum head that didn't exist and new pistons both of which make significantly more power, neither of which were needed, increasing the rebuild cost for a pinto to $8k. Tell me again who you are looking out for? I proposed a freeze on performance parts to keep you Stan from back dooring any more parts for your buddies. Interesting how quickly you got those parts pushed through but 4 years later the zetecs still aren't equal. You've had dyno graphs since June showing the major hp and torque differences between the zetec and aluminum head pinto but have chosen to do nothing with them. Would you like me to post them for everyone to see?
It's also incredibly hypocritical that all of a sudden you are so concerned about the 125 plus FC drivers but when we overwhelmingly wrote the CRB to ban the Elan manifold you still recommended the BoD approve it.
I'm fine with parity (again I'm one of the guys that wrote it) but I'm certain that every year as long as people like Stan are on the CRB a new tweak will get forced on us giving the pinto more power and the debate will start over again. I just want it to end.
Chas and Stan,
I am trying very hard to be objective on the subject of Pinto vs Zetec equality. I'm having a very hard time doing so.
Having said that, please see the following.
FC engine facts:
1. The Zetec engine was promised to be ~equivalent to the Pinto engine by mid 2007 - this has not happened.
2. One of the main reasons for allowing Zetec in FC was to help increase SCCA FC car counts. If the Zetec remains at a disadvantage to the Pinto, this has not, and will not happen.
I changed to the Zetec engine due to long term lower cost, greater longevity, less engine maintenance required, and the ability to keep up with the ever-changing components/performance of the Pinto engine.
At this point I feel like Zetec FC owners/drivers have been, at the least, short-changed, and at the worst, misled and disenfranchised. And, I have not yet suffered personally, because I decided not to upgrade my Pinto, and will not race my Citation-Zetec until 2009.
The original Zetec-into-FC rules proposal went to great lengths to NOT disenfranchise the Pinto cars. Shouldn't the same courtesy be afforded to the Zetec cars?
I would say it takes an equal amount to so blatantly renig on the agreement and then go off in completely random directions that seem to have nothing to do with member input.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan Clayton
Would it be so bad to encourage a movement towards a more economical, longer lasting engine? It's been done before, back when the SCCA had some kind of vision.
Originally Posted by Stan Clayton http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/imag...s/viewpost.gif
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.
At the risk of offending Stan, who, for the past several years, I have had a lot of respect for, I have to agree 100% with Wren, and to a large degree, with Chas.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wren
Confusion about the FC class and which engine to use, is, IMO, its worst enemy. This causes potential entrants to delay, if not completely dismiss, rebuilding, buying new or better used cars, etc. Once the rules become stable, and a clear path to the best package is determined, people will automatically gravitate to it. With uncertainty, people stay on the sidelines waiting for the fog to clear, and car counts decrease accordingly.
In addition, the Zetec is designed to be used with unleaded fuel. Certainly not a bad idea in these "green initiative" times.
Stan,
You stated that the F/SRAC is evaluating two options. The Lighter fly wheel for the pinto and a new map and restrictor for the zetec.
1. What is the time frame for possible implementation of these changes?
2. What is the new map and restrictor size for the zetec? where did it come from and what is the supossed effect?
3. is there any consideration to lighter weight for the zetec?
Brian Tomasi
Geez :rolleyes:
Putting sticky note on computer screen. 'DO NOT get involved in this topic of conversation again'.
Actually, there are several ingredients that have been discussed in re-balancing the FC engine options. Some additional information is being developed that should assist the F/SRAC and the CRB in arriving at a package of changes. One of the goals is to get everyone at the same weight. It is a bit early to discuss a final proposal, but an announcement could be made in a few weeks.Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianT1
Dave
Rick, at various times in the past, I (and several others, Froggy in particular) have suggested that this might be part of a good solution. And, if you read between the lines in Dave Gomberg's response above, it may well become a reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by rickb99
Is it safe to say that to achieve parity we need to give the pinto more kick off the apex (flywheel), and give the zetec more speed into the braking zone (better map and restrictor). ?
Sounds like a winner! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Frog
not to beat a dead horse here but if the pinto is so lacking off the bottom end how is that a pinto got to T1 at Road America 1st even with Anders jumping the start and being pushed from behind ?
And actually the same thing happened at the runoffs in 07. Pinto / zetec front row. Pinto arrives at T1 1st.
That's one I've been wondering about also. But Nikki has been doing that for several years now. Whatever it is, I wish I knew.Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinFirlein
Sorry to take so long to get back to this thread. I checked in throughout the day yesterday, but did not take the time to reply, as I am still trying to catch up after being at the Runoffs for a week. (Had an interesting job yesterday..repaired a damaged carbon rear deck lid from a Tesla Roadster.)
Chas, we could argue 'til the cows come home, but no amount of obfuscation, changing the topic or shifting the blame is going to convince me to abandon the Pinto in FC. That's not what we signed up for when the Zetec was brought into the class, and I am not going to support an end-run around the vast majority of competitors in the class to lock the Zetec into a position of superiority.
Wren, please specify what agreement I renig'd on and what random directions I headed off in. Your post is too cryptic for me to decipher after staying up until 2am watching the F1 race. As for encouraging "movement towards a more economical, longer lasting engine" goes, I believe that is the point of this exercise.Quote:
I would say it takes an equal amount to so blatantly renig on the agreement and then go off in completely random directions that seem to have nothing to do with member input.
Would it be so bad to encourage a movement towards a more economical, longer lasting engine? It's been done before, back when the SCCA had some kind of vision.
DaveW, don't worry about offending me; nobody else does and I've gotten used to it... :p
I am reminded of my favorite Zetec story...a well known FC competitor (not DaveW) used to berate me about the reckless abandon and haste with which I was bringing the Zetec into FC. Then he bought one and the complaints changed to 'why the hell are you dragging your feet!?' Sounds to me like we have it about right. :D
Purple Frog, I believe you have broken the code. :thumbsup:
Everybody enjoy the F1 race? :checkered:
Stan
Dave, I did make an incorrect statement there. I should have said, there hasn't been a lot of 'visible' support from the Zetec community on the lighter flywheel. On the other hand, if the Zetec needs a new map to equalize the braking zone velocity and a fuel starvation issue GIVE it to them!Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveW
Hope this is true and I realize the focus is on 'performance equalization' at the moment. However, the part numbers are known, the 'performance' effect is ZERO and the Pinto longivity probably/might be improved. So why not throw the alternative pistons and rods into this 'solution'?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Gomberg
Our engine isn't apart yet so we don't know how badly it's cooked. But if it needs pistons, we'd sure like to try the upgrade and still be FC legal.
zetec parity in '07Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan Clayton
aluminum head and more parts to put the pinto at even more of an advantage.Quote:
and what random directions I headed off in.
Recommending the Elan manifold.
Continuing to throw more parts at the pinto is throwing good money after bad. i believe that Chas has hit the nail on the head as to why. What other reason could their possibly be to try to force people to go buy a part that would pay for a large part of a zetec conversion?
and it's not the pinto. no matter what you do to it, it will always be making a lot more power than it was designed for. That is not a recipe for longevity.Quote:
As for encouraging "movement towards a more economical, longer lasting engine" goes, I believe that is the point of this exercise.
I guess we'll have to disagree on that. AFAIK, the CRB has approved every Zetec-Pinto parity proposal to come out of the F/SRAC in the past three years. I personally pushed to get John LaRue on that committee to ensure a strong pro-Zetec voice was being heard there, and I continue to push for even better parity. I'm sorry perfect parity didn't happen as quickly and smoothly as we all wished, but we are not giving up and IMO we have in no way renig'd on the parity promise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wren
Shall I tell my favorite Zetec-Pinto parity story again? ;)
The aluminum head was approved for one purpose only...to address the growing shortage of iron heads. That it makes 2-3 more hp than a good iron head is precisely why the F/SRAC and the CRB have been working with the engine builders to give the Zetec a commensurate bump in power (and while we're at it alter its map to more closely mimic the Pinto's hp and tq curves). I think the Zetec guys will be very happy with the changes we're working on.Quote:
aluminum head and more parts to put the pinto at even more of an advantage.
Getting stuff done in SCCA can be like driving in New Jersey. Sometimes ya gotta turn right to go left. In this case, we had been working the manifold supply issue for more than a year without resolution, and in the end a credible threat to approve an alternate source was part of what it took to break the logjam.Quote:
Recommending the Elan manifold.
Again I have to disagree with you, Wren. Approving good parts for the Pinto makes perfect sense to me for the same reason approving good parts in FV and FF makes sense...our Club members want to race those cars! Between FC and S2, there are more than 250 active Pinto engine racers who continue to need a steady supply of parts, and we are going to continue to support their needs.Quote:
Continuing to throw more parts at the pinto is throwing good money after bad. i believe that Chas has hit the nail on the head as to why. What other reason could their possibly be to try to force people to go buy a part that would pay for a large part of a zetec conversion?
I think you are wrong about longevity. Good parts DO in fact lead to greater longevity and reliability...and even to lower long term costs. Look at FV. That engine was designed what, 70 years ago? And to make 36 hp. It is now making nearly twice that with terrific reliability and affordability, which goes a long ways towards explaining the continued strong health of that class. Same with the Kent. I think the only Ford pieces still absolutely required are the block and the rocker arms. Every single other piece in the engine can be after market, AFAIK. So, if we continue to assure a steady supply of quality, affordable Pinto parts the class can stay healthy. And that is exactly what we intend to do.Quote:
and it's not the pinto. no matter what you do to it, it will always be making a lot more power than it was designed for. That is not a recipe for longevity.
Regards, Stan
You are a year late.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan Clayton
noQuote:
Shall I tell my favorite Zetec-Pinto parity story again? ;)
I know that the S2 guys wanted it, what was the letter break out for/against the aluminum head for FC? I can't find it in old fastracks.Quote:
The aluminum head was approved for one purpose only...to address the growing shortage of iron heads.
Giving the zetec the slight edge would have had the same result and cost competitors about the same amount of money, but Doug wouldn't have profited.
good job getting that out in time for it to be worthwhile for the zetecs to go to the runoffs.Quote:
That it makes 2-3 more hp than a good iron head is precisely why the F/SRAC and the CRB have been working with the engine builders to give the Zetec a commensurate bump in power (and while we're at it alter its map to more closely mimic the Pinto's hp and tq curves).
I find it incredibly hard to believe that was the motivation behind proposing the intake and then having the balls to recommend it to the BOD. Does Elan know they were manipulated for that? Sandy claimed there was no logjam and any end user could get what they wanted.Quote:
Getting stuff done in SCCA can be like driving in New Jersey. Sometimes ya gotta turn right to go left. In this case, we had been working the manifold supply issue for more than a year without resolution, and in the end a credible threat to approve an alternate source was part of what it took to break the logjam.
Do what you want for S2, i don't care and by their participation numbers, I may not be the only one. FC still has a chance.Quote:
Again I have to disagree with you, Wren. Approving good parts for the Pinto makes perfect sense to me for the same reason approving good parts in FV and FF makes sense...our Club members want to race those cars! Between FC and S2, there are more than 250 active Pinto engine racers who continue to need a steady supply of parts, and we are going to continue to support their needs.
on par with zetec longevity and cost? At what cost for the pinto by the time they are done building it?Quote:
I think you are wrong about longevity. Good parts DO in fact lead to greater longevity and reliability...and even to lower long term costs.
The last FV rebuild I got cost ~$2500. That engine would be good for at most 10 weekends and the heads would need to be done after 5. That is ~$300/weekend just in the motor, not really how I define cheap.Quote:
Look at FV. That engine was designed what, 70 years ago? And to make 36 hp. It is now making nearly twice that with terrific reliability and affordability, which goes a long ways towards explaining the continued strong health of that class.
I have refrained from posting on this but wanted to clarify a few facts. First, my understanding was that the goal was to have the two engines equal mid 2007. The first major problem was virtually no one ran zetecs in national trim or natl events in 2006 or the first half of 07. There were a few of them run in the pro series in 06 and the zetec was clearly the desired configuration come mid 06 and 07 in pro trim (e.g. Mike Andersen’s mid 06 season conversion). And I understand the tire differences and arguments for this.
We did the test at Summit Point at the end of 06 and at the end of the day we arrived at the 2007 map and restrictor. The testing ended when the track closed and not when we had completed all testing. For the final configuration the cars were run at equal weight and in nearly identical configurations. It was my opinion that the final map and restrictor left the pinto at a partial throttle disadvantage in low and medium speed corner exit. On the penultimate lapping runs the pinto and zetec were dead equal coming off the corners in lapping but the zetec had a slight disadvantage at top end. That led to the final configuration and we did three full throttle drag races with excellent parity. The final test was another lapping test and I felt the pinto was at a disadvantage in partial throttle corner exit with equal top speeds. Time ran out and that was the closest we came up with. Final situation, in my opinion, is the zetec had a 30 lb disadvantage relative to the testing weights but had a corner exit advantage and fuel injection (i.e. real time pressure, temp, mixture and throttle mapping). Seemed like a reasonable place to start 2007.
Since then, I believe the corner exit advantage was confirmed but a top end difference seems to have arisen. The test was done with a fresh good QS pinto motor, but there are always reasons that the top end performance could have been off, it was very cold on the test day.
So we monitored the situation closely but very few zetecs ran nationally and the zetecs were dominating the pro series with scca mapping in 2007. It was not clear what changes to make during 2007 with virtually NO national scca data but lots of antidotal commentary. At the end of 2007 Chas wins the runoffs and LaRue comes in second which made it even more difficult to make a change to increase the zetec performance. As far as I could tell Nikki had the same approximate advantage in Runoffs qualifying and the race as he did the previous two years. And the aluminum head was then in the pipeline with uncertain effect. At the end of 2007 I favored lightening the pinto flywheel and increasing the restrictor with similar weight, the intention being a moderate adjustment to equalize the bottom ends and give the zetec better top end performance. Then came the aluminum head. I will post my comments on the aluminum head, pinto longevity, and my thoughts on what to do next in a separate post.
-Rick Silver
I personally was totally opposed to the aluminum head as it was the last thing we needed when we were in the middle of the pinto/zetec equilibration. I thought there would be lots of pinto heads and engines coming available and I knew how hard accurate equilibration was. I argued very strongly that if the aluminum head was made legal then it had to have a weight penalty and it should not be an open development piece. So it was suppose to come in as a nominally equal component not to be hand ported and a weight penalty to compensate for the lower center of mass. In came a piece with a 3 to 4 horse power increase over a broad range of RPMs and this was after the combustion chamber was made legal. This completely screwed up the equilibration program.
In my opinion the aluminum head should not have been allowed in class with the clear advantage it came in with. No previous testing and no attempt to restrict its performance was wrong. Of course the aluminum head fiasco occurred while the manifold fiasco was occurring. Both items I was totally opposed to. I worked very hard to prevent the manifold and to restrict the aluminum head as these presented an almost insurmountable challenge to the equilibration process that was underway. Final decisions on these items were and are made by the comp board and BoD, matters which I do not want to comment on.
As far as pinto longevity goes, my understanding directly from the engine builders is that a major piston redesign would help with longevity of the cylinder bore and ring lands, but the rods are not a real option due to stroke, piston geometry, and wrist pin placement conflicts. The pinto top end I would say will always need to be rebuilt every 500 miles. But I felt our initial commitment was to never eliminate the pinto and equilibrate the pinto and zetec with at most a modest weight differential.
If one tries to equilibrate the zetec and aluminum head, then you are mandating the aluminum head if you want to be competitive with a pinto. I feel very strongly that it is not acceptable to mandate the aluminum head as it has substantial costs, cannot be easily integrated as a stressed member and was never intended to have this kind of an advantage.
Based on what we have been handed, the only fair option then seems to be to equalize all three configurations. Take another month or so and come up with a modified Zetec map and/or restrictor to match the aluminum head, boost the steel head pinto and lighten the pinto flywheel. I fundamentally do not believe we should equalize the zetec and aluminum head and screw the steel head pintos because the aluminum head should never have been allowed that kind of advantage, although with this scenario in principle everyone could own a top flight configuration for enough money. What I don’t like about equalizing all three configurations is to what steel head do you equalize, Coello’s head or whose. In the end I would pick a very good steel head, a legal zetec, and equalize them to what are suppose to be invariant aluminum heads. This would include a lightened pinto flywheel, low cost steel head pinto modifications and a new zetec map and restrictor.
-Rick Silver
This is why all the Pintos are being penalized.Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveW
For those not following this subject back in 05/06... there is a reason why Rick Silver was the spokesman for the group. :thumbsup:
Thanks for your input Rick. :greenflag:
I, also, want to thank Rick for stating the real facts in this matter.
Thank you VERY MUCH for taking the time, not only to post, but in the original formulation of the Zetec rules package. The FC community owes you more than we can ever repay!
Wouldn't this take away the only thing keeping the iron head Pintos competitive with alum head Pintos?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Gomberg
I have raced against two alum headed pintos with my steel head, and I can say that striaght line speed is pretty much dead even with both cars I have gone up against. Take the added weight off, and it is definately not a close race anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by RussMcB
except there is more to the summit point test. Rick and I disagreed at the time and apparently still do about one particular point. Partial throttle response. Sandy and I were both standing at T1, running the radar gun, viewing the drag race results and watching the bottom end accel at the exit of T1. For those not familiar with the track that is a 1st gear mid 50ish mph. Both Rick in the pinto and Rob in the zetec had dead nuts equal accel off the corner. Test was observed with both cars leading and both cars following and the results were the same. Results were observed when both drivers accelerated from the same point. At varying times both drivers were late to the throttle with the expected end results.
Rick you will remember that where you complained about the mid throttle response was in T3. 3rd gear 100+ mph corner. You said Robs car would jump ahead when he went from mid throttle to full throttle. Rob and I both told you he was never at partial throttle. He was full throttle from the time he comitted to power. As is the norm for T3 at SP. After one of the conversations you asked Eric ( QSRE) if he could deaden the partial throttle accel. Eric made a change and you guys went back out. not better and not worse. No doubt because there wasnt any partial throttle accel happening.
It should be pointed out that the test was done on hankook radials. This was done so that the cars were all on the same tires and the tires wouldnt go away with all the laps we were running. Its not unexpected that after running a full year on the tire that Rob would be more comitted to power in a high speed corner. Since we were testing engines and not overall driver lap time it didnt matter for our purposes.
Test ended around 4:30 when it was getting just to damn cold to continue.
So can others confirm Daves information? I assume everyone would be very interested as to what the changes are going to be. This being the off season is a perfect time to do this and with many people doing winter rebuilds I would believe time is of the essence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Gomberg
Testing of all three engines is a good idea however time and cost really does not make this a logical option. Just make a plan and stick with it for a year.
Brian Tomasi
I have multiple points on the issue of the parity. Being involved in the racing communitee I have heard so much talk of how can the zetech beat the pinto. In my opinion I think that the pinto and the zetech are as equal as they can be. Look at Brian Belardi this year at the run offs. Usually he uses a pinto engine, and he almost always finishes in the top 8 or so. This year he used a zetech power plant and finished right in the ball park of where he probably would have finished with the other engine. Then at the june sprints this past year I watched one of the qualifing sessions in which R. greist and brian belardi in the pinto we dead even coming out of 14 and were still even in turn one. All session they were nose to tail, wheel to wheel. There was no clear advantage car to car. The next point i have regards coello. If you are going to compare all the zetech's to his car, your crazy. After hearing about the pro race at Road America and how the radar speeds were tested i just shook my head. What I found out is that at the end of pit lane Niki's speed was around 136mph while the top zetecs were around 133-134mph. Did anyone look at the aero package that was on nikis car vs the others that were there. That is the reason why Niki is fast. He has a car that is setup so he does not have to run the downforce that everyone else needs...... If you put together a average speed you cannot you the outliers in your data. in our case Niki would be considered an outlier. This is not quite complete ill come back on later to finish it.
If you are going to compare a pinto to a zetec the best way to do it is to have the same driver testing two cars, one with the pinto and one with the zetec. As to the point of giving the zetec more power and only giving the pinto a lighter flywheel. I would have to see the new map and restrictor to really judge the situation. but in my opinion this just sounds like the zetec guys want to beat coello. but again i would want to see a test before i make a full judgement. If you were going to just completely take off the restrictors and see what the zetec could do and let the engine builder do what they reasonable have to do to make the pinto keep up, I think that is a bad idea, unless this would be in a zetec only sereis. making the pinto have more power has already been addressed i think because the pinto is already on its edge of performance. if you try to make something have to much power its either gonna be a gas guzzler or engine life will decrease dramatically again making the cost of running higher which we all know that money is tighting up in this day and age. But also has anyone thought about the safety of the driver with this power increase? That increase in horsepower in a steel tube frame car with negligable crush zones does not sound very safe to me. unless you were to redesign the nose side pods and create a rear crush zone.Another thing that i have been thinking about is look how long we have had to get the gearing on the pintos right. they have been around how many years. i dont have an exact year but we have only had the zetec for what 10 years or so. In my aimless walks throught the paddaock I always hear teams debating on gears and they're tones are always in that "I Guess" sort of tone. with time comes knowledge.but in my opion i think we already have a solution that works or very close to it. i would say that what ever solution would keep the cost of parts down would be the best at this time. I would agree to giving the pinto a lighter flywheel and giving the zetec a little bit of a boost but not so that the zetec has a clear advantage over the pinto.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VDfreak
JB, is that you????
It's really hard to pay any attention to posts, long winded or otherwise, that are posted by someone who's unwilling to sign his name at the bottom...
Chris Camadella
#4 FC
Couldn't be Budrow... he can't type that much in one day. :rolleyes:
JR Frog is right, besides I could never be accused of having a little bash without my name attached. I long for the days of Steve L hiding in the bushes outside of Sandy's house to wack him with a brick for building good engines!!!! Fantastic stuff!!
This thing is way to tame. Sorry not me. JB
A set of proposed rule changes to the FC engine specs has been placed on SCCA website. The proposed changes were recommended by the Formula advisory committee as well as the Comp Board. This is now out for member input as a package rules change.
Dyno curves from the various configurations will be posted by Dave Gomberg within a day or two. The goal of these equilibration changes are to have all three engine configurations at equal weight and nearly identical HP curves over the usable RPM range. The new specs move all three performance curves substantially closer than the previous configurations.
The basic changes are:
The Zetec gets a larger 1.340 restictor and a new map. The new map and restrictor makes the Zetec nearly identical to the Aluminum head. The Zetec is up about 1.5 HP from 5600 to 6000, about equal from 6000 to 6400 RPM and the Aluminum head has a 1.5 HP advantage from 6400 to 6800. This should produce nearly identical performing engines.
The aluminum head receives a lightened flywheel. From 14.4 lbs to 9.5 pounds. The current Zetec flywheel and crankshaft/connecting rods are significantly lighter rotating masses than the pinto and this lighter flywheel is intended to equilibrate the rotating mass differences which are not measured by the dynos.
The iron head pinto will get a new optional camshaft which yields a 3 HP gain from 5800 to 6800 RPM over the current allowed cam and also the lightened flywheel. The Aluminum head currently has a 2.0 to 3.0 HP performance advantage over the iron head for the usable RPM range. The new cam for the iron head is intended to compensate for the aluminum head HP advantage and lower center of mass. The iron head equilibrated to the aluminum head is based on a very good, top 10 % iron head, but not the very best.
The goal in making these changes was to do so at a minimum cost to competitors yet still achieve parity. This is viewed as the only fair way to get all 3 configurations at the same weight and nearly identical HP across the entire usable RPM range.
The lightened flywheel and iron head pinto camshaft are optional and not required parts. The optional camshaft can be installed with the iron head in place on the car. The flywheel can be either machined to the minimum weight or the approved alternative flywheel used.
-Rick Silver
See the specific recommendation starting at the bottom of page 6 of the Dec Fastrack.
Rick;
I know a lot of people have worked very hard to get things to this point.
But look at where the run offs will be held and what the power curves show.
First the operating range for Elkhart is 1000 rpm at best. The Zetec has a declining power curve starting at 6200 to 6400 compared to the Pinto. The Pinto is not rev limited to 6800 but can go up to 7000 or 7200. The power decline beyond 6800 is not that much for the Pinto. Additionally the Pinto will produce more power at 7000 than it does at 6000. But if you project the curve for the Zetec it falls on its face the higher you go. In short the Pinto has a 0 to 2 hp power advantage over a 1000 rpm range when compared to the Zetec. Further more the advantage increases as you go higher in the rpm range.
Second, the dyno runs are on the same fuel. The Pinto can be re jetted to run hot fuels. The Zetec is mapped for one grade of fuel. Hot fuel without changing the map does no good and maybe causes a loss of power. Hot fuel may be worth 1 to 4 hp. Now the disadvantage is up to as much as 5 hp.
Third, the Zetec engine has a slightly larger frontal area due to the air box. This may cost 1/2 to 1 hp at 135 mph.
Bottom line, there is little reason to show up at the 2009 run offs with the Zetec engine package. Top line efforts of preparation and driving will favor the Pinto for the win.
Is this new formula better? Yes, and by a large bunch. The current Zetec deficit is as much as 7 to 10 hp at high rpm.
I believe Steve Knapp was quoted as saying that he would protest any Zetec that could out run his best engine. He will still be able to make the same statement with this new formula.
I have looked at doing some high level simulation to see if my opinion is correct. Problem is that I don't have good data for Pinto vs Zetec powered cars to do a good job of verifying the model. The model should be for VD cars powered by Zetec and Pintos. We did some crude modeling of the current engine situation and found that the difference was insurmountable in favor of the Pinto. But that model was a straight line acceleration only.
Interestingly the weight penalty was much larger than we expected. At the same weights, the difference was possibly acceptable at some place like Heartland Park but not at Elkhart.
Lowering the weights to 1200 is a big plus.
Steve, are you taking into accont the new zetec restrictor and map that is being proposed? I have heard that with the new restrictor and map, the zetec revs higher and longer. Almost to the point of driving like a pinto, using close to the same gears.
First, where can we find the specs on the Elgin cam? I looked at the Elgin online catalog and could not find it. Cost?
Second, the proposal states that the cam and lightened flywheel will be optional for Pintos while the weight increase to 1200 lbs is NOT optional. It may as well be mandatory as you will be taking 2-3 hp off every stock Pinto engine effective immediately. Considering the current state of the class and the economy, do you think it is fair to effectively mandate the additional cam/flywheel expenses for Pinto owners to offset the immediate increase in their weight? Again, this will be MANDATORY just to remain competitive until we witness race results.
Keep the weight of Pintos at 1190 lbs regardless, at least for a year.
Rob Poma
FC #7
I have to agree w/ Rob (although 7lbs= 1hp), esp for an older chassis... the guys who are doing everything they can to get out to the track and compete in a 97 back VDs (or ??) will have to add more weight although most won't have the cash to update the engine parts- then their older cars are even less competitive and maybe they decide not to try so hard...
I doubt the cars will ever be exactly equal. Two different motors with completely different structures. Adjustments can be made to help make the lap times close, but based on what data? Hell, the same driver in the same car can't even turn exact lap times lap after lap. Someone is always going to feel like they are at a disadvantage.
Makes spec classes more appealing for sure!
As promised, here is the comparison of the several existing and proposed engine dyno runs. The color coding is as follows - top to bottom at the left side of the graph:
Light Green - current Zetec Club Map (1.290 restrictor)
Red - proposed Zetec Club Map (1.340 restrictor)
Purple - Pinto iron head - proposed alternate cam
Dark Green - Pinto aluminum head (stock cam)
Royal Blue - Pinto iron head - stock cam
The cost to machine an existing Pinto flywheel to the proposed minimum weight should be just about $100 (give or take some, depending on local labor rates).
The proposed Elgin cam is not in the catalog yet because it was created recently expressly for this purpose. Pricing should be similar to any Elgin cam with the same number of lobes.
The proposed Club Map will be made available on the SCCA web site if and when the entire package of changes is approved by the BoD.
Dave