Printable View
I know this is a bit of a thread hijack, so sorry guys.
Its interesting to look at the sidewalls of these tires- the FC front is much more square than the wider tires or even the Fc rear.
I'm thinking that the wide tires will be fantastic at a track like Barber, in July. I ran a whole season on the set you see pictured which shows that what Richard was saying is correct- they never got hot.
I'll do that spin test on my balancer...
I see by the results that Greg beat Thomas in both the National races this weekend at T-Hill. Here is the link to the results.
http://www.mylaps.com/results/showev...st=3&org=32147
JR
That's true, but I think Thomas has earned a rematch. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Read
In Saturday's race they were qualified right next to each other, but Thomas broke second gear in the race and that put Greg well and truly out of reach. For the Sunday race Thomas out-qualified Greg by the better part of a second, but then had intermittent electrical issues that slowed him on-track. At one point I caught and passed Thomas only to have him repass me a couple of laps later...going by me like he was doing Mach 2 with his hair on fire! :p
It was a blast!
Oh, and Jeff...check out all those SFR FE's! :D
Stan
I wish Thomas had a better performing car myself. On Saturday I lost the carb shaft nut and retainer, running on less than a single barrel from about lap 7 on. Amazing how little acceleration you get without the whole 2 barrels. He would'a killed me.
Sunday I was looking forward to a great race with Thomas but his electrical gremlins returned just about the time the greeen waved.
Looking forward to a rematch!!!!!! :D
Actually, second gear went very early on in Saturday qualifying (and like a nitwit I kept driving without it--I plead red mist!!). With a new gear from Greg (thanks Mr. M) I got it fixed barely in time for the race.
In the Saturday race I passed Greg on the first lap on the outside of the turn 2 sweeper and had about a 2 sec lead on him before the electrical problems started. Add that with his problems and Saturday was like Greg said to me afterwards "The Battle of the Crippled Cars".
Between the gear thing and the electrical thing I think I only got 3-4 clean trouble free laps in all weekend (starting to be a trend). But on what would have been my best lap of the weekend during Sun qual I got balked by Greg Pizzo twice (thanks a bunch Greggy!). That one was my 1:56 time. I was sure I was heading for the lap record on that very lap!!
Anyway, by the time I could diagose exactly what the electrical problem was the weekend was nearly over (it's got to be a short wire somewhere...probably something annoyingly minor...it always is). I also thought I had it fixed more than once.
On Sunday I knew on the warm-up lap I was a goner and when I planted my foot down at the green flag the car just went "see ya!, I'm going home". That turned into one of the hardest races I've ever driven, just keeping the car moving in a forward direction and not letting it quit on me. Surprised I finished.
Definitely have to do a rematch. I really hate getting beaten by my old car.
OBTW, in the decision making process of allowing the Zetecs in on 6's and 8's vice 8's and 10's did anyone consider that this was going to create a supply problem affecting ALL the cars? Used wheel prices are up something like 65%. With virtually no true FCs being produced in the past 4 years and a quantity of drivers looking for 6s and 8s I believe this falls in the catagory of "unintended consequences". Another one of those "it seemed like a good idea at the time" things.
But the good news is that 8 and 10 prices are depressed. :D
Hey Thomas, you might also mention the yeoman's job my crew did in getting your gearbox reassembled, (twice).
Thanks John Morgan, a very, very good guy to have around.
Oops, Greg, I had originally wrote about that but the post ended up being too long so I edited it (kept that in it). Then I decide not to post it. Then later I wrote the whole post again forgetting to mention about it. Thanks for the assist you and John provided and thanks for the gears. Gotta remember to get those 18/28's to ya.
Fellas;
If I am not mistaken, the SME consensus is the 8 and 10" wheels provide no added value in performance. If this is the case, and there are members that desire this for the cosmetics alone, then why not?
Iverson
I have read the same thing regarding the aero negatives and rolling resistance of the 8's & 10's, but I have to say, I am a little skeptical of these conclusions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Iverson
An example of what breeds my skepticism: I was out at Sears Point today watching a friend practice for their upcoming Pacific F2000 series race later this month. The fast guys in these cars (VD RF0X/Zetec) run 1:31's and 32's at Sears, that is 6+ seconds faster than the fastest FC cars ran on Labor Day weekend. The Pacific F2000 cars run on 8's & 10's.
Geez Bill, six seconds is HUGE. Can it be this is solely a function of tires?
You know Fellas, we're in this for the speed. Perhaps another compelling reason that is certainly less cost prohibited than, say and aluminum head. Thoughts?
Iverson
Rick,
I really don't think the difference is solely wheel width difference. Some of the guys running in the Pacific F2000 series out here are really fast drivers when compared to the run of the mill club racer. In addition, the series is pretty competitive so the state of setup and tune is probably a notch above a normal club effort.
On the other hand, one of the front runners in the Pacific F2000 series is Thomas Merrill. When he was running FC last year in the region he was turning mid 1:36's at Sears, so again, the wider tires seem to be a factor in the faster times. BTW - The SCCA qualifying lap record at Sears for FC is 1:35.3, the race record is 1:35.4. One of the guys I was visiting yesterday that is a mid-packer in the Pacific F2000 series was running 1:35’s in his morning warm-up session, when he came in he discovered he had VERY incorrect tire pressure in his left rear tire!
I am not saying I believe allowing 8's and 10's is a bad idea. I am saying the basis of the argument resting solely on "no performance advantage” is probably not accurate. If the rules changed for FC to allow 8’s and 10’s, for sure, the dearth of narrow wheels would certainly be fixed once and for all.
One last factor is if 8/10’s were allowed in FC it might improve the entry numbers out here as some of the Pacific F2000 guys might run some of the local races as FC (instead of running as FA’s like they do now). Unfortunately, if the Pro's back east decided to stay with the narrow spec it might have the opposite effect, probably netting a loss in total entry numbers.
This is the essence of this discussion - that no one knows for sure how the wheel/tire cominations would match up at every track. Not knowing means that if you are serious, and have the $, you would test all of the tire possibilities on both sizes of wheels, for every track.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Steele
I and other modestly-budgeted, full-time employed racers would not have the time or $ to do this. It would be another advantage (they have enough already) for those with deep pockets.
This topic keeps rearing its head. The Cooper Series is dead. FC SCCA GCR rules state 6"/8" wheels for the class. The F2000 Championship Series will be running only 6/8 wheels in 2008. The 2006/2007 Series rules allowing 8/10s were an accomodation.
We determined early on that it was near impossible to equalize performance between the different size wheels on every track, under every condition- requiring, as Dave pointed out, all teams have the expense of carrying both size wheels (and all the other specs required).
I heard the same thing, that some of the Pac2000 guys this week were doing '32's. Let me tell ya if they are it's more than just the tires giving it to them. When I ran the Cooper series in 2004 at Sears Point the fastest guys like Howard, Wilson were doing '32's and that's with an unrestricted Zetec and 8x10's. Bet if ya slapped 6x8's (with the right tire compound) on those PR1 cars they'll still be doing 32's.
I don't know if this issue is entirely dead yet, although I'm sure there are those amougst us that wish it were.
I have to say I think it's a bit amusing that the arguments against 8s/10s are basically that "the SCCA rules are for 6s/8s" and "it would be too expensive for competitors to add another variable". There is nothing sacred about the existing rules- if enough people are in favor of changing them, then change them! I personally think FC would be an even better class with 8s/10s and 160 hp (easy, with either motor). As for expense? Well, SCCA rules allow an awful lot of expensive stuff as it is. If you want any semblance of cost containment you need something along the lines of the old Cooper spec or the current Pacific spec. I'm perfectly happy to spend money on tires, gas, and testing instead of the latest shock package or aero bits. I also like knowing that when I get beat it's mostly because I need to drive faster instead of spend faster (though I'm sure my wife thinks it wouldn't be possible to spend faster).
1:31's and 32's at Sears Point is absolutely flying in these cars. I am pretty certain if you changed the slightest thing the results would be much higher times. As for "slapping" on a set of 6's and 8's and turning 31/32's, I would say that would be unlikely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Copeland
I posted my response to Rick's observation without going back through all that had been said before. Obviously, many feel the thing has been beaten to death, so I apologize for whipping the old mare just one more time. :o
Bill
why not allow both combo's but add a penalty/rule/whatever to prevent switching back and forth? If you choose to run 8 & 10, you can ONLY use 8 & 10 and cannot switch to 6 & 8 to better suit track conditions, and vice versa? IF the 8 & 10 have an advantage the times will prove it and the change can be rescinded. If the 6 & 8 combo has competitve times then the 8&10 combo does not have an advantage and no harm/no foul.
The issue is as I outlined it above- you can't set a penalty, equalization formula or whatever for changing track conditions: LRP and 90 deg will favor the 8/10s no matter how hard a compound you put on the car. LRP and 50 deg, the 8/10s wouldn't be competitive with a hard compound. One or the other will always have an advantage.
More importantly- the F2000 formula was developed with 6/8 wheels; there is a relationship between the tire patch, hp, wings, etc which is what makes the formula so attractive and durable. If you change the hp, change the wheels, etc- at some point it isn't a F2000 anymore.
I have been told by more than one professional driver (with great credentials who I highly respect) that the F2000 is a much more difficult car to drive than, say, either a Pro Mazda or Cooper Series car, and that is why its so good- you really have to learn to drive the car and it is a much better teacher than the others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Wright
When I was contemplating the jump from CFF to FC, the madding FC crowd said "do it, and don't look back. They're funner than hell and EASY to drive". So this has whole thing has been a big fat story.
Interesting - I think my Citation FC is pretty easy to drive when set up correctly. Otherwise, how does a nearly 65-year-old (me) manage to keep up with the young guys? ;)
ehhh....what do I know. I've never driven a Pro Mazda, only sedans, production, SSB, FF and FC. I got this opinion from others (that always gets you in trouble). However, I have driven a CooperSeries car once and in my humble opinion its easier to drive, what with the bigger tire patch and more oommph under the right foot...more forgiving and easier to get out from under a mistake.
Note to Dave- I suspect you could make more than one 'young guy' a bit uncomfortable with your ability in most any car you choose to drive. I'm not saying the FC isn't easy (I love how it drives), just comparatively requires more skill to go fast than some of the others.
Rick- FF's are NOT easy to drive fast, which is why they're such great teaching machines.
Now I get it, we don't want the cars to be easier to drive; we want them harder to drive, so they are better teaching platforms. We want to stay with 6's and 8's. not because it will cost a bunch of money to buy new wheels and set all the old timers back to square one on their setup data, but to make the cars harder to drive, to be better training platforms, now I get it.
I mean, one walk around the pre-grid before any FC race tells the whole story, scores of young guns just waiting to get out on the track for their learning experience...
Man, why didn't you guys say that in the first place, it sure would have saved a lot of discussion.
One thing we better think about though is beefing up the FC spring board, because the guys bouncing on it these days are a little heavier than was envisioned when we designed the original board. Nothing is more embarrassing than to have some over weight old fart break the spring board.
UNCLE ..... it was yet another failed attempt at humor!Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Wright
That's about the end of this thread...:skull: :checkered:
In the memorable words of Bluto Blutarsky, "It's not over until WE say it's over!" :greenflag:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Wright
Curve ball... the new Hoosier R35A (versus the old 35) has 2 inches LESS rubber on the rear (for 8-inchers). Of course many of you use other rubber, but felt this was an interesting development. Hoosier claims the tires are faster.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Wright
Fellas;
With deference to the annoyance of most, I'm still not ready to put this to bed. In advance, my most profound apologies if it puts anyone off their AM coffee.
Now that the consensus (for the most part, I think) agrees Pinto and Zetec are in parity with respect to engine performance, what about tires. Anyone, please help me to understand this:
I am not asking to re-kindle the brawl, just a coherent answer smothered in civility. To tell you the truth, I am about one rude comment away from packing it in.
- chassis - identical
- gearboxes - identical
- aero package - identical
- engine performance - parity (I direct you to War and Peace)
- Where the rubber meets the road - not even close.
VR
Iverson
Maybe I'm missing something here, but I don't understand the question - we are all running on 6 & 8" wheels, and, except for the pro series, which has a spec Hoosier radial tire, we are all (in SCCA racing except for certain local club classes) running whatever tire we want.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Iverson
I regret having posted this extremely poorly worded and thought out question. Consider it rescinded.
I don't think it's a 'bad' question, Rick. There is some logical reasoning to have the FC SCCA and Pro series cars running the same size wheels. It would make crossing over easier for sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Iverson
As stated above, there seems to be pros/cons given the track configuration to each. On the other hand if SCCA said you can run either, then the point cars would always be on the 'best choice' for the track. Whereas, your 'average' Bobby Budget FC guy just couldn't afford to put $3,000 plus in to two sets of 8's and 10's to have the option no matter how cool they look.
It would be my guess that is why SCCA FC drivers will put up a lot of resistance to a switch or, option. The resistance level would be astronomical if an SCCA 'switch' were suggested. That would mean thousands of 6 and 8 inch wheels become so much scrap metal.
Now that I re-read your initial post and read between the lines, are you suggesting a spec tire for FC? Although this would meet with a lot of resistance from those with tire deals, I think it is a good idea for the budget-challenged, like me. However, a problem arises in deciding what tire(s) it should be. Too hard, too soft or the wrong size/carcass-spec combination can cause a lot grief for those whose cars can't easily be made to work acceptably on them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Iverson