Printable View
The data John alludes to were collected at the 2006 Runoffs, where only 3 of the 25 cars weighed in under 1200 lbs, post-qualifying or post-race (2 of those by only 1 lb). The average weight was 1217 (1214 lbs after deleting those weighed after shortened qualifying sessions), but I have no information about who might have been carrying ballast. Stan
At the 2006 (and 2007) Runoffs, there were a lot of yellow-flag laps. I am guessing that cars were close to 10 lb heavier compared to what they would have been if the race ran under green all the way. In addition, most people leave AT LEAST 5 lb extra, so that they will not be illegal on weight after the race. So, take off 15 lb (10 lb for yellow laps, and 5 lb for legality cushion) from your numbers, and you arrive at 1189-1192 lb. So it seems to me that the weight should stay at 1190.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan Clayton
IMO, basing minimum weights (in any class) solely on Runoff competitors who make it to impound is a flawed evaluation. These are the guys who will spend the extra money to have the fancy light parts. Checking the weights of mid-pack National guys and front-running Regional guys will probably give the most accurate evaluation.
Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the weight in FC 1175# for years only to be increased to 1190# after new cars were intorduced and were significantly heavier? I do not recall any changes to the formula which would have increased the weight otherwise.
My GCR collection shows the weight of F-2000 cars in FC at 1175 lbs through the y2k season. For 2001 the weight was raised to 1190 lbs. That was before my time on the CRB, though, so I can't state with certainty what the rationale was.
As John LaRue notes above, if the competitors want to retain the 1190, write the CRB. I don't think we feel strongly one way or the other so long as all configurations end up at the same weight, and folks can get there.
Speaking of which, we've heard from a few folks. How about others with late model VDs and iron heads. That configuration is the overwhelming majority of cars in the class...how much to you guys and gals weigh "as raced"?
Stan
IIRC, as John LaRue said, the reasoning was that the newer VD's (1998 and later) were heavier than the earlier cars, and so to make those cars (the majority of new cars at that time, and those in the Pro F2000 series) closer to the limit, the rules were changed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan Clayton
Honestly I think I would prefer 1190 but having said that if I judge our cars by the scales @ M/O I'm always +10 over what it weighs on our set up pad. We are usually over anyway no matter whether there are yellows or 22 laps. When it's all said it REALLY doesn't matter that much. I'm much more concerned with parity than the weight.
i've been legal (1190) by 1 pound in the past more than once (getting it down to a science) and have no objection to 1200.
RF-94 iron head, typically at 1210# post race.
Any ballast, Greg? How much residual fuel? Thanks! Stan
So if its 1200 or 1190, or 1220 whats the difference? All the cars have to be the same. Give the bigger drivers a bit of a break. Someone on this thread, I think Rick, mentioned its much easier and way cheaper to add weight than remove it. In the Series we have noticed that there is a wide variation in the weight of the same make of cars, even with what appears to be the same equipment on them. Go figure.
I got my '03 VD (Zetec w/12lb [?] heavier Hoosier radials) to about 1225 on an empty fuel tank by using a small battery, removing the jabrock, swiss cheese brake rotors, pennon wings/diffuser and careful attention to bodywork (no repairs). To get another 10 or 15lbs off would have to be more radical (alu belly pan, ICP calipers, etc). I weigh around 220 with gear.
Just as a data point, my 94 VD is exactly 1005 lbs no fuel. That's with a 1/8" aluminum pan, AP LD-20's all around, Avon tires, no fancy rotors, no fancy driveshafts or CVs, small battery.
I'm 215, and I guess another 15 for gear, which puts min weight possible at 1235, race weight around 1285. I figure I can get 20 lbs off the car for about 2000 bucks with ICPs and other doo-dads, including the lighter flywheel.
Beyond that it's either taking weight off my a$$ or big $ for the aluminum head or thinner bodywork.
It is my understanding that this is not a done deal as far as the rule changes go.
Can someone post a link or e-mail of who we should be sending our letters of approval for the rule changes to.
It would be much appreciated.
Brian T.
RF-93, iron head, aluminum belly pan, about 1210 lbs last race. No ballast. I am 185 lbs on a bad day (too many fig Newmans).
crb@scca.org, bod@scca.org. Wil we reach 16 pages of posts with this thread?
Stan: Residual fule is around 1.5 gallons and the ballast is organic. :D
Want to make the weight really fair? Raise the min. to 1400 lbs. I've never competed in FC at any weight lower than 1340 lbs. Never complained either...(well, hardly ever....)
what is the exhaust timing with respect to TDC/BDC for the proposed alternate camshaft? will the exhaust's primary length have to be adjusted ??
Art
artesmith@earthlink.net
That is a reasonable question Art and we have to understand that there is likely more to be had out of the revised cam, flywheel and aluminum head than what we have seen to date. Given that the development is locked down on the Zetec in every conceivable way including exhaust and the Pinto has no such restrictions (even to an extent on the aluminum head) this is a continuing endeavour. I do not favor being locked down on exhaust when the Pinto is open.
John
So up the power on the Pinto and then add weight!!:confused: Hmmm why not keep the weight and not add the power? Same out come. Is this another engine builder driven rule change?
My Rf-95 has 35#s of lead and must go out on a full tank to make weight. No where else to add lead, Im 165#.
If you want a totaly even class go FM or FE.
Art and John, the proposed new iron pinto cam retains the same 112 +/- 2 degrees lobe separation angle as the original cam. No change there. Stan
Stan-
thanks!
Art
artesmith@earthlink.net
You're welcome! :thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Smith
When is the BOD outcome scheduled for?
The BoD meets in early December, and I anticipate the decision will be released as soon as practical to give folks the maximum amount of time to prepare before the Nationals start in January. Stan
The numbers I used are:
driver & gear 145 lbs (Rob Poma (soaking wet)
predicted remaining fuel: 1.5 gallons
starting weight: with driver, gear and 6 gallons fuel: 1230 (1199 predicted at impound)
I generally want to be about 5 lbs over at impound.
Personally, no prob for me driving as I weigh 183 w/o helmet.
Guys, it is essential to send in your comments and let the comp board and BoD know your opinions on the engine equilibration formula and the proposed weight change. This is not a done deal and will be based on member input. Also, with the holidays coming up it is very important to send your input early if we want to get rule changes accomplished in a timely manner for 2009.
Also, the equilibration formula and weight change comments can be in the same email but they should be treated as independent matters. The goal of having all the cars both at the same weight and with similar horsepower curves is to make track performance much closer. Choosing 1200 versus 1190 is really a separate decision based on member input that will hopefully reflect the best long term interest of the competitors and the class.
Input and comments should be sent to crb@scca.org and bod@scca.org.
As a side note, although there may be subtleties to the formula, this is way closer than what we had last year. The HP differences are 1 ½ HP or less at any given RPM and no one configuration has an advantage across the RPM range.
AS the bulk of chassis are of the pre 98 version,probably about 500 to 150 anyway.
And 95% of these would be fitted with a Pinto engine.
Would it not make some sense to give this age range a distinct performance advantage instead of speculating on what may balance performance over the few. And this is pure speculation based on nothing more than a Dyno.
The problem seems to be particapation and the simple fact that the only growth can come from within . Why not simply give the advantage to the majority to hopefully encourage there playing at the nat level. 1190 vs 1230 Face it FC is not growing,there is nothing in place that would encourage it.
The Zetec engine was the future about 10 years ago but that ship has sailed.There are only about 70 zetecs in the country and my bet would be that only a small percentage of that Club race. So why even mess with it.There are not even that many chassis that can take it. Why not consolidate your mass into a group that will grow the grid,instead of toying around with a theory about performance balance for what amounts to about 100 players nationwide.Hell there used to be 40 plus cars at a Mid O national alone.
All this Mumbo Jumbo about performance balance is BS, how does it improve the number of cars racing? That to me is the problem,and to make what is the majority spend a dime is not a good idea..Somone should find them a reason to race,not drive them further away.
What message do you want to send? A work in progress for 3 more years?
The majoity should write there letter's and tell the load of wankers that come up with crap to get on with the real issue.
Jon;
What you say is mostly true for all SCCA classes. Most of all the cars are old. Compared to FV, FC is just a baby.
And you make a reasonable argument for adjusting the rules for to benefit the largest number of participants.
However formula car racing has and should continue to be about writing a set of rules and building cars to those rules. In a way the rules are a contract with the membership.
The mistake here was to introduce the Zetec in the first place and say that after a period of time there would be parity between the 2 engine types. The contract implied by the rules has not been honored. We are arguing about how we honor that contract.
This discussion would be much more productive if we put this energy into improving the value to participants of club racing. The success of the new pro F2000 series speaks volumes. The vast majority of participants are club racers at hart.
10-4 Steve,I'm afraid that the only way to improve the value of Club racing for the Ford 2000 runner is to get enough of them to get your own race group. I believe that this happened in CenDiv at one point.I know we had it for a few races in the SE in the late 90's
Don't think it possible with the fragmented state of the Formula's at present. Let alone the fragmentation within FC.
10-4 on the Pro Series perfect example of the level of frustration turned ugly where Bob and Al start spending money to have there own race group and invite a few freinds!!!!! At the same time giving Mike something to do in his spare time!!!!!
Jon,
I'm curious, how would you suggest equalizing older FC's, say 92-96 vintage with 97-08 cars?
Whoa. Let's not try to go down the chassis equalization road. :thumbsdown:
Or, the next post will be, how do we equalize a 84 Reynard to a '05 VD?
Hi Dennis, to me it's simple, anything 97 or prior or simply pick models that may not be loved that are later than 97 and put the weight at 1190. True some can't make this but youngster that is just starting can. 98 and newer weighs 1230. If you have a problem with where to put the lead,don't use it. We had a driver in 98 called BUTT MUNCH that weighed 115 pounds.We just went up a couple octives on he floor. It's a great place to put it and I swear it helps the chassis survive curb damage. The cost you say, what would you rather do call your engine builder and ask how much, or call Keith Averill,or Pat Prince. for a floor and rivets.
This adds some excitement in my opinion to see the guy at the front driving the nuts off a 94 VD. I'm not saying even,I'm saying advantage pre- 98.
And this picture was taken in 2008, not 1999...
You put a young, thin, in-shape driver in it! :ha:Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Frog
And this picture was taken in 2008, not 1999...
Unfortunately or fortunately depending on how you look at it,
it was not the Glen National....
So, Jon...what would you do with the FC class? Freeze the specs and give fifteen year old cars an advantage? That would be akin to thowing the whole class in the waste basket as far as any future growth is concerned.
The class was radically changed in 1986 with a rules change to F2000. It changed again with the introduction of the pushrod cars (Swift and VD) in 1990, and really again with the 1998 VD. Nothing since (the Zetec is a motor change only- the introduction of 8/10 inch rims whould have been a change but was a non-starter in Club) has created a huge advantage.
In the mean time FE and FB have surfaced with rules that allow a much more modern chassis design. Each has its own problems which probably have prevented it from becoming the dominent class. Maybe its time to have another 'change' in the FC rule which allows new chassis and aero technology, a current motor package, modern gear box, yadda, yadda. Not to be implimented today, but a road map for the class to evolve over, say, 3-5 years. Mind you, nothing so radical that current cars are useless but maybe something similar to the relationship between pre and post '98 cars. It is after all a formula, not a spec class.
Thoughts?
Sorry for the semi-hijack re the rules package this thread was supposed to be- everyone interested should send their email to the CRB or BoD.
based on several private e-mails my question on exhaust timing wasn't as clear as hoped. Stan's answer is clear; relative exhaust to intake timing and tolerance are the same. to be sure I understand, is the exhaust duration the same when measured at the same lift ?? it's my understanding and experience that exhaust valve opening with respect to BDC/TDC drives exhaust design without regard to relative intake timing.
Art
artesmith@earthlink.net
Art, I suggest calling Quicksilver for that level of detail, as I have not yet seen the cam dr graph and can't tell you. Please feel free to pass along what you learn. The lift table will be published for this cam if it is approved, just as it is for the original cam, but I am sure folks will be curious. Stan
Hi Bob,I did not mention freeze. The design that you drive and almost 90% of the grid drives was first run in the US in the fall of 97" Is that 11, that would make it only 4 years newer than 15. Not far away in racing terms.
I think this is about something stable and getting people out to the race track with a chance to compete in something inexspensive. It may a way of introducing them without having a big nut on the hook. Maybe if they like the smell they will stay.
A bunch of guys running some science project with 3 engines,proposed or otherwise with no accurate data other than some #'s from a dyno is not going to help the fact that FC is now behind FE and fading.
Seems the primary problem with the class is powerplant. Until a cheaper option (real cheap and easy to install option) to the Pinto and Zetec comes along and replaces the two the bickering about parity will be endless and nobody will feel good about competing in this class, regardless of what weight, wheels, wings, shocks, etc. you put on/in the car. It will literally never end. All good intentions aside, nobody seems to happy with either engine option, and the class right now is stagnate and going absolutely nowhere.
Sorry, time for the truth to be told.
Off subject, but the back slide of the class in my opinion is due to the proliferation of open wheel classes. We have only so many competitors and if we continue to divide the pie this is what we can expect. Had SCCA held firm to the class structure and required the classes to evolve we would likely have strong numbers. The net effect of adding the new "wizzy" classes in effect dilutes the pool; creates some new interest, but in small numbers; siphons off competitors from existing classes and pushes the existing class(es) towards vintage as interest and development decline. FE took direct aim at FC/FF and certainly has had a negative impact on those groups. Whether this is the net effect on the car manufacturer(s) is another question.
John
All those formula class options can only dulute the class if you have unhappy people in it. It's apparent from all the posts over the last couple of years, there simply is no joy left in FC right now. It's all rather sad.
What John said...I agree.
Jon- maybe freeze was the wrong word. I fully agree with you we're running an 11 year old chassis design (the break between '98 and '96 and older is a world of performance difference and that was done within the rules) and that's what I'm addressing. It needs to be updated, but not such that all previous models are immediately junk, or become instant CFC, thereby instanly disinfranchizing all the current CFC's. It would be easy to design a new car with all the wizzy stuff on it and create a new class, but who would buy it, for how much, and where would it race? SCCA needs more new classes like a hole in the head. Lets update what we have.
The FE is a spec car, the FC is a formula car; one is fixed in time until you change the rules, the other is meant to be developed and improved within a set of rules. And, the two tend to attract different mindsets. We can all argue black helicptors that the FE was developed to kill the FC class, but I think it was more like instead of trying to fix FC, just forget it and start with a clean slate...and it had great potential, except its a spec car and clearly didn't satisfy the majority of FC owners.
more 2 cents...:-)
Is it the chassis's that is disenfranchising? It always seems that whenever this word gets batted about it's always about engines.....
Once again. for the class to grow, both Pinto and Zetec have to GO! That even rhymes.
I dont see what exactly is wrong with making cars older than '98 a CFC. I remember being out west with my dad running CF in the late 80's with a Crossle that at the time was only ten years old (and the class wasn't new either). It seemed as though the DB1 pretty much did something similar to the 98+ VD's, why not put them in CFC then? It doesn't mean you have to run CFC but you can. Just like you dont have to run CF but you can and then SCCA should focus the rules on the 98+ cars.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Wright
Jon;
How about new cars regardless of engines start with a 50 pound penalty for their first year. Then we reduce the penalty 10 pounder per year until we get to the 1190. That should make the older cars more competitive. I would also suggest that cars 1995 and older get to run at the old 1175 weight.
Or maybe because the weight standards have been set for VDs, they should only apply to VDs. The other brands of cars get to race at the weights that were in effect at the time they were homologated.
:DQuote:
Originally Posted by S Lathrop
Steve,
Whats the matter are you selling too many new cars?
Any suggestions on how we remove 78 pounds from a 1989 Reynard? :) When will the aluminum block be phased in for pre 1990 FC's?Quote:
Originally Posted by S Lathrop