Sounds like a winner! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Frog
Printable View
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
Frog;
I had graphs from earlier this year (the current situation before aluminum heads). I am extrapolating from those graphs and from the information that Rick posted.
My point is that with the run offs at Elkhart, any deficiency in top end power might render the Zetec uncompetitive.
It may be that other things will mitigate the power deficiencies and the two engine packages will perform dead even. This is why I would like to do a good simulation so I can look at the different variables. My experience with simulation is that this will give good answers. It is not proof positive but neither are track tests or just dyno runs.
We still are left with the fuel problem. I think that the fuel should be 100LL av. gas. should be the standard. And the fuel should be purchased at the track.
Now that the graphs are posted, I stand by my argument. But this is a massive improvement. If you look at the graphs you see why I did not have any Zetecs at the run offs. Also, I will bet Nicky's power is in the ball pak of the target power curve.
graph with legend added for convenience
Art
artesmith@earthlink.net
Carnut and Rob, I appreciate your comments and made these points strongly. The problem is the aluminum head is out there and legal. Although I dont personally agree, several people including reputable engine builders said the aluminum head could not be restricted by 2 to 3 HP in a repeatable fashion. So, allowing the cam which will be I am guessing under 300.00 solves this problem in a controlled manner. The flywheel is specifically to make rotating masses closer which will reduce the corner exit differences. Again, this can be done for around 100.00. So while I agree with your points, in the long term interest of the class, this makes the performance curves much closer. My comment about being optional is that if one runs regionals on used tires, these items dont have to be installed. On the other hand, this gives iron head pinto competitors a fair shot to compete with the aluminum head at a fraction of the cost of installing the aluminum head.
As can be seen by the dyno curves, this makes things much closer than before. Especially from a RPM vs HP characteristics perspective. There are some issues with fuel, but one cant penalize all pintos because they could run fuel. First, my experience is that half the HP gains from fuel can be had just be running the fuel without rejetting. Second, the fuel injection continues to have the advantage of real time mixture and timing control relative to ambient conditions etc. So, I think this is a reasonable compromise although I personally favor making exotic fuels illegal and hope that rule change can be made some time in the near future.
One other comment on the iron head pinto curves. This is a middle of the road QSRE pinto on the QSRE dyno. A top notch pinto has about 2 1/2 to 3 HP more than the one shown which leaves a top 10% pinto right on the Aluminum head curve +/- 1/2 HP (all of this based on the QSRE dyno calibration). Steve, I will post a more detailed response to your comments later today, but I think this is a huge improvement over last year. Also, this is difficult as there is not funding for this, QSRE donated the dyno time and cams while various competitors ran the new Zetec map, restrictor and pinto flywheel.
How is it possible, with a map & restrictor change, to totally change the shape of the Zetec power curve? I know that the change shown on the HP curves indicates that the low end torque of the Zetec will be dramatically altered. How is this possible without changing something in the engine?
Thanks ... Jay Novak
Jay, the changes to a/f ratios and ignition timing possible with a fully programmable ECU can result in astonishingly different curves. Unsurprisingly, gross changes are easier to get than fine-scale ones. Stan
Thanks Stan.
Jay
I want to thank Rick and others involved in the quest for parity. I really, sincerely appreciate all your efforts in keeping a level playing field.
While the cost of the cam/flywheel machining may only be $400-$500, there is more to consider. At minimum, the bellhousing will need to be removed to get to the flywheel.
It is necessary to remove the engine just to freshen the head in 96 & 97 Van Diemens.
I think it might really require a full engine removal, rebuild and dyno for maximum hp returns. If you factor in the cost of a Quicksilver or Elite rebuild, well, it's probably at least a $3,000-$4,000 bill. That's somewhat easier to justify if it's time for a rebuild anyway. If not and you want to go do a National race against someone with the latest/greatest engine/map/head/flywheel combo, you are already at a substantial disadvantage.
What if the racer has a second engine as a spare? It should be changed as well.
What if you want to sell/buy an engine from a CFC or a S2000 guy? It's more expense for someone.
I do not object to these proposed changes for the cam and flywheel provided the Pinto weight remain the same for at least a year or until the Runoffs when the strongest politician/racer will lobby for their motor supremacy.
I simply don't want all the Pinto engines to be immediately rendered horsepower/weight deficient as of 01/01/09 without a single real race to support the Pinto change. This is all moot IF you let the Pintos weight remain at 1190 lbs. Pintos can remain competitive and the engine builders can profit from the guys who want to pony up, so to speak.
I have another idea for parity along these lines and will start a separate thread.
Again, thanks to all involved.
Rob Poma
Question on the graph?
Was the purple (iron head Pinto with alternate cam) spinning a 14 pound flywheel or a 9.5 pound flywheel?
This certainly looks like a worthy effort.
The weight doesn't bother me (1190 versus 1200). On no day will we cross the scales at 1199 or lower.
Why not say if the competitor runs the lighter flywheel/ alt cam they run at 1200, if not, they run at the 1190?
atleast its much closer then its been. Its never going to be perfect as the motors are simply too different. My only question is why 1200 was picked as the weight and not 1190 ? I guess it doesnt really matter as long as everyone weighs the same. It just seems that the class standard has been 1190 and those cars get a natural weight reduction with the flywheel change so why the increase ?
For the record, based on the graphs I would probably pick the aluminum head but it may well be close enough to not matter on the track with all the variables that exist between car / driver combo anyways.
Its natural that guys still running the standard combo arent going to be happy but this class has been jacked up for 4 years now and we need to get on with things so we can move forward.
It was expained to me that the majority of the FC competitors at the runoffs were closer to 1200+ then 1190. Nicki was the only one close to the min.
Rob, I understand your weight concern, but you dont hardly weight 150# soaking wet, so 10# more lead wont be that much more. I feel your pain, I will need more then 75# for the citation, or just let Morgan Sr drive it!:meatball::ha::thumbsdown:
John
john,
That's cold man. Enough with the fat jokes!Hey I'm a sensitive guy with feelings. I was hoping for 1250# to allow me to worry about minimum weight for once in my career.
If I read the dyno curves correctly, the proposed new Ztec map and restrictor is clearly the best overall. Most top end HP and really close up til that point (but my arms are getting too short to read the small stuff).
Do not forget that horsepower sells engines and torque wins motor races and the Ztec has always been ahead in that department.
Nikki is simply a tremendous marriage of a great driver, great chassis and great engine.
How many Runoffs wins and poles in the last 4 years. You can't truly gauge whatever combination of engines unitl you have that level of combination in all the possible engine combinations.
That all said, the individuals trying to make things equal are to be commended for their hard and often thankless work to try to make the class interesting for a number of combinations.
Jim, Now you have to weld 2 pounds back on your flywheel. ;)
Rick Silver, Thank you guys for the hard work. :thumbsup: I think one measure of how good the effort has been was Kevin Firelin's post. I respect Kevin as a very knowledgable experienced scholar of this class. Kevin liked the motor changes and accepts them as a good compromise. But...Kevin is wondering why the need for a weight increase, as are many of the rest of us. We have been an 1190 class for years and years, why the need to change? The front runners (pinto or zetec) with the great cars needed ballast to make 1190, now you lighten the flywheel and jack up the weight minimum. No sense. :confused:
Rob Poma makes a point. He speaks from the view of a highly competitive driver in an older (97) chassis. And weighing in at maybe 135 pounds wet, Rob would have to add even more lead to make 1200. Rob is so serious, he's not going to change his engine without shipping it back to the engine builder. So, for him there is a real cost.
I on the other hand, I race in the "wanker FC" class where most of us tip the scales every weekend at 1235 if we guessed right on the fuel load. :o For me this change is a easy no brainer. I split the chassis, pull the flywheel off, take it to my machinist, add a new cluth disc, and bolt it all back together. While I wait a day or two for the flywheel, I pop off the head and install the new cam. Put the head back on and away we go. Less cost than two tires. :thumbsup: Two evenings in the shop. No brainer. OBTW, If i make the changes, and Rob doesn't, I'll still have to drive like the heck to make sure Rob doesn't lap me in a race. :)
As I have written for over six years now, these rule changes are more important to the pointy end of the grid....the drivers that are competing for national points and are really going to attend the Runoffs. In my opinion their voices are the most important. Regional racers, and owners of garage queens should have less weight in the decision.
As i said before. Good work Rick. :thumbsup:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Frog
Ditto the thanks, Rick and everyone. I could never have enough patience to do what you guys did.
On the minimum weight issue - with the iron Pinto at 1190, I was running ~20 lb of ballast. Now, with the Zetec and the 1200-lb limit, I will be running ~65 lb of ballast. Heck, I could have made the old 1175-lb limit with the iron Pinto, and would have had to still run ~5 lb of ballast. BTW, I weigh ~170 with suit, helmet, and HANS. I think us old guys over 65 should be allowed to run without ballast - with the Zetec, that would put me at ~1135 w/o fuel. ;)
Kidding aside, I'm glad we are finally going to have a reasonable (I think) equivalency.
Thanks, again, to everyone involved. I'm starting to get enthusiastic about next year!
I am showing the proposed power curves with labels.
I, too, applaud the efforts to have parity at the National level, but would also like to consider containing the Regional drivers' costs as well.
I know or a fact that Rob weighs 145# with gear. I had to add 53 lbs to my car to get him up to min weight at impound.
With a lighter fw and an additional 10 lbs weight, i will probably have to try to find a place for another 15 or so pounds of lead. I do have one spot left, but I hope all the extra weight doesn't rip the floorpan off the bottom of the car! ;) At least I get to put it low on the chassis...
Don't know if I am a candidate for the new cam and FW, though. I might be able to do the cam (if I can afford it) but taking the trans off to get to the fw, wiould be a major job for me. I just got the darn thing back together, and would not be enthused about having to take it all apart. Would also require re-setup when put back together too.
If I keep my current cam/fw, why not allow us regional guys to stay at 1190? Like someone said, it probably only matters at the pointy end of the group. If the 1190/1200 were allowed, it would be a mess to police at impound (said as I am wearing my Regional Tech hat). We would have to remove the valve cover on every car (finish position 1-3)to confirm which cam was in it.
So would 1200 for National events and 1190 at Regionals work? If any Nat drivers show up to run a local regional (for testing or whatever), they would be at the front anyway, so the extra 10lbs wouldn't hurt them.
This would hurt people like Rob, though, since he when he runs SARRC series as regional he usually wins handily and also enter Nationals competitively (he is that good!). So having to have him run at 1200 for the SARRC would not be fair either.
My position/opinion may be hypotetical, since I haven't driven for a long, long time, but it would be pertinent as an entrant for any potential drivers in my car.
The wieght being 1200 lbs is not an issue. Most drivers are a bit heavier than 135 through 170 lbs. If you wieght that little you are the lucky ones. I have always found it cheaper to add weight than to take it off. I was a big proponent of moving the class from 1175 to 1190 a few years ago. It was just getting to expensive to find ways to lighten up.
I think this is a pretty good compromise all around. All we can do is just try it and see what happens.
Brian T.
I appreciate the kind remarks. There have been several people that have contributed to come up with this formula. One of the challenges in doing an equilibration formula is that there are 200 or 300 active racers each with their own perspective, size, weight, budget, goals etc. It is impossible to make everyone happy. But I believe this is a reasonable compromise that gives the class long term direction and stability while maintaining cost without being particularly unfair to any single group of competitors.
As far as the 1200 lbs minimum weight, several competitors have requested this. It is my understanding that the majority of competitors are not able to make minimum weight. I personally can make weight in my 98 VD but had to take steps to make weight. With an extra 15 pounds the obvious thing for those who can make weight is to use a stainless floor pan, they last three times longer than aluminum, add stiffness and puts all that weight very low. 1200 pounds seems like a reasonable compromise in the long term interest of cost and participation numbers. Those that can make weight have options on how to best accomplish this over time.
In working towards this the weight of 1200# was indeed thrown out because it was asserted most could not make the 1190#. Obviously this is skewed because the weights were supposed to be pulled from Runoffs and/or other major events where people would already have ballast in the cars. I don't believe a survey was ever made of what the cars weighed empty. Most everyone I speak with claims they are running ballast.
The powers that be wanted to see the class at the same weight; that was made very clear.
If you feel strongly about leaving the weight at 1190# speak up.
John