Pinto Equality

Wow there are a lot of different agendas here! Interesting to read some of the posts from a year ago by the same people to see how things have changed.Too bad the Zetec was put into FC. Seems that it has and will chase more away than it will bring.Next year it will have been in a chassis fo 9 years and after 6 years of agruement about it's viability as a replacement for the pinto the agruement has shifted to parity by the very few that are left that have even remote intentions of competing in club races.

Good point Jon.

I have to agree with the with position taken by Dennis and Frog. I am one of three partners in a couple of '96 Van Diemans, and there is no legitimate hope of winning a national race with those cars. But, I still enjoy running them when time permits, and it seems stupid to me to not have pistons, rods, a lightened flywheel or aluminum head when we know that the lifespan of the engine will increase.

I would love to be able to put in the proper rods, pistons and a lightened flywheel the next time our engines need a rebuild. OK, so it costs a couple of grand or so to do this; if the lifespan of the engine is now doubled, it's false economy not to do so.

The guys running at the pointy end of the National grid have voiced very legitimate concerns, and we really need to to have the Pinto and the Zetec running at the same weight and then "equalize" the cars based on a Pinto with an aluminum head, the right pistons and rods, and a lightened flywheel. The guys running Nationals are the ones who are spending big dollars on trick shocks, whizzy aero packages and tricked-out gearboxes, and they deserve to have a formula that is as fair as can possibly be made (and yes, let's all recognize that it won't be perfect but that it can be much better).

That being said, I'm betting that a rule change like this will bring a lot of folks back to the track who are there for the love of the game, not to win the Run-Offs. That's the majority of the owners in the class anyway.

I would certainly sign a petition asking the CRB to make this change to FC.

Richard

Okay, the last 4 posts have reflected my thoughts since the first page of this discussion. My son is out to have fun in his new 1990 Reynard. I'd sure like to see him have a shot at the serious FC SCCA racing. But I see two distinct topics here.

1.
Are the Zetec/Pinto 'equalized' to compensate for variations in torque and horsepower. Seems like the answer to that is within reach with some finite adjustments which are simple to do on the Zetec. And, the Zetec crowd is fighting for that.

NOTE:
Dispite the arguements that the Zetec has an unfair handicap, people who can are converting to Zetec in MASS. Now, why would anybody in their right mind convert to an engine that has a handicap??? Obviously it must be the issue of rebuild life cycle that is more important to MOST racers then 30 pounds and a couple of HP. Right, wrong?

2.
At the moment, Pinto ownerss (like us) are more concerned about doing something to increase the rebuild life cycle on the engine. It's my understanding that 89 and 90 Reynard chassis don't lend themselves well to the engine swap. Even if they did, there certainly isn't 15 or 20 thousand dollars laying on our garage floor to do it.

The option to stay home? NO, that's not an option. But we can find 'enjoyment' in running the car and have the longer life. The alternative is to run 'that other club' with a decent field of FC's running FL there. And, install the Pinto engine life enhancing parts and enjoy the racing. Then, maybe run the occasional SCCA regional as FS. This is not the world we dreamed of when we bought the car. But it certainly sounds better then an annual rebuild at this point. Especially when the "FIX" is known.

So, exactly what ARE the 'right' pistons, rings and rods to do this?? Maybe we'll just do that at the next rebuild and wait for SCCA rules to ketchup :greenflag: :tire:

Rick, AFAIK the only thing the Pinto's lower end needs to increase the TBO is a forged piston with a good modern ring package. The other longevity issues are in the top end, which the aluminum head addresses.

A power infusion is another matter, of course. If the FC community seriously wants to do that then they need to start building a consensus for 2009 or 10. Next season is only 2 months away, and I don't see it happening that fast. A power infusion will also negatively impact rebuild cycle time, plus probably accentuate the performance differences between newer and older chassis, so be sure to take those factors into consideration while you contemplate the allure of more power...;)

Stan

Stan,

I'm not an engine builder but it's my understanding that the pistons, rods and rings are all at issue. If I understand correctly,one of the major issues is the rod/piston angle causes us to beat up the cylinder wall thus precipitating the need for resleeving which significantly adds to the cost.

The Pinto has been used very successfully in other forms of racing for many years and there are off the shelf alternatives available. Esslinger Engineering carries a pretty full line of quality pistons/rods. and rings for the 2.0.

I don't think reinventing the wheel is what is needed, however dealing with the problems by incorporating readily available parts into the solution is. We need to look at the whole deal.

Some interesting stats according to the SCCA website:

Nationwide FC had 71 races this year with 331 entrants or 4.6 cars per race average.

If you look at the NER national results there were 22 entrants.

http://www.grav.net/~nedivpoints/stats.pl?mem=FC

one driver had six races
three had four races
two had three races
two had two races
fourteen had one race
eleven of those entries were out of division.

How many have already indicated on this forum they are going to F2000 next season?

It's time to fix the problem. If you wait until 2009 or 2010 you won't have any FC problem because at this rate it simply won't exist. If it does, it will be pretty irrelevant.:blackflag:

It's amazing when F1000 was in it's infancy the F1000 proposal decisions were made post haste even moving it immediately to a National class which was unprecedented, yet when there is a groundswell of support behind changing to more reliable pinto package and equalizing the power between the two engine packages everything will take a year or two.

The changes to the pinto engine have the support of the engine builders and the owners and everyone agrees that there needs to be equality so lets get off the dime and submit the proposals now. There are other people on the comp board that can be convinced that this is a good idea. The folks who know the engine builders should put the proposal in place for the new piston, rods and flywheel now. Once approved we can move immediately forward with the test to equalize the performance. Write it now as discussion on this board doesn't result in decisions only proposals to the comp board will.

Dennis, it is clear that the piston package needs updating to increase the time between overhauls, but quality forged rods from Cosworth, Oliver and Crower are permitted in FC, and every engine builder I've spoke with agrees that they are fully up to the task. Jay Ivey is working with CP on a forged piston to address that side, and I am confident we'll have it in place in time to avoid any availability issues.

The long-rod kits from Esslinger and others are aimed at the roundy-round market, where they are making a lot more power than us by running roller cams, side-drafts, big valves and revving the snot out of the engines. While such a package might slightly improve the TBO at say, 160 hp, it's almost certainly not going to do anything measurable for you at 145, compared to a good forged piston with the rods we now have.

Like I said earlier, though, if the FC community wants a power increase, that's something they need to work out in a comprehensive manner and addressing the parity issues with the Zetec. In the meantime, folks are already upset about the pace of change. Moreover, nobody has talked about a new target hp. Nobody has acknowledged the cost of new and bigger valves, roller followers, new cam, carburation, tuning, etc. Stampeding off half-cocked in a new direction is not the answer IMO.

Stan

The rods and pistons are needed to correct an issue with the geometry of the engine. As a result of the shorter rods there is more sideward thrust put on the pistons/cylinder walls leading to pre-mature wear of the cylinders, pistons and rings. The longer rod corrects this and requires a different piston package. This is not a new solution I think PF brought it up a year ago, I think all the engine builders would agree that it is needed and most pinto owners would welcome the longevity it would add to their engines. These are the types of proposals that aid in promoting formula car racing, getting cars out of the garages and keeping them on the track.

Stan,

I am really not interested in the Pinto making HP although that will probably be a by product of the new aluminum head. What I am interested in a motor that doesn't need an annual 4K rebuild and bolstering the dying FC field.

Not to disparage any of the engine builders but they have all had many
years to bring forth a package which would increase the lifespan of the Pinto.
To date they have not done so. Why not? If my livelihood were tied to this
engine I'd have introduced a long life Pinto package to the market long ago.
Sometimes a market place with limited vendors has an interest in status quo.



"In the meantime, folks are already upset about the pace of change."

Who are the folks that are upset, the drivers who have gone or are going to Zetecs, the guys who have or are converting to F1000, or the handful of club FC guys that are left?


It seems to me the that a very large group of drivers have already voted with their feet and wallets.

"The long-rod kits from Esslinger and others are aimed at the roundy-round market, where they are making a lot more power than us by running roller cams, side-drafts, big valves and revving the snot out of the engines"

And the problem with those rod kits which may add a bit more longevity and are already proven is.....?

Since most pinto chassis maybe as much as 80% are only worth 15,000 to 20,000 does it make sense to invest another 8,000 in the engine,for the sake of what you are told is another 1000 miles of longevity?Also you are told that it will reduce the cost of a rebuild.Has someone built this bespoke engine run it and proven it to be true?What if a year from now it proves not to be the case.If Stan says yes, and the worst case happens where would he hide?What if it does not have a positive effect on entry #'s which I would wager 42 Apaloosa Goats, that it will not.
It is possible that I'm missing something, but would this not further fragment FC as some will surely not be able to make the change.You will then have parity to figure out which we now know is not likely.You would have a Pinto circa2007,a Zetec,pinto with rods/pistons alloy head,flywheel,pinto with a flywheel,weight,alloy head.
Seems obvious that this discussion would not be taking place if there were 20 pintos at each national,regional,or whatever.The engines in the chassis that are sitting in garages still run fine,the engines sitting around the country in engine crates would still run fine if they were fitted to chassis.The fact is the FC #'s have been dropping for a long time and the reason is not that there is a some kind of shortage,chassis ,engines or otherwise.

Jon,

Are those milking goats or riding goats??:)

While you may be correct, status quo certainly isn't working,
I'd be willing to take a chance and I'd wager a goat or two you'd
do better than a thousand extra miles per build.

Dennis they are neither.They are just exspensive goats that I would not like to lose on a bet.
My guess is F1000 will be very strong in two years and this will have a further effect on the class.

Hey John,

Are you going to be in Atlanta for the ARRC race? I am looking for a test day car. Im going either way.

Thanks
Scott Dick
scott@cincinnatihelicopter.com

Face it , CFC and FC are dying in SCCA.
If I'm gonna pound around in my 94 VD, with 2 to 4 other guys in the N.E. as CFC, when engine rebuild time rolls around. Screw it, If I'm spending 4 k anyway....? year one do a "long life" motor, run as FS. Year two do the aluminum head and your done..

Dennis... If you build it....they will come... Id rather put dollars there. Couldn't it increase the value of your older FC car? Hmmmmm. And wouldn't be more attractive to the new guy buying a older car that he doesn't have to do a motor right away? (yeah , sure, all used race cars have fresh engines in em)
I'm not the brightest guy in the world, but lots of times my wallet out votes my ego, Id run my 94 as a FS, why not?

You can argue all day long about parity and all, ( all intelligent points on both sides) but for what? In the SCCA? are you kidding? FC and CFC are running with Formula Fords! so does it really matter

F1000???.... sure, OK.. all those motors....all those builders salivating over new trick stuff to do to em........ you wait and see how pricey those things get in a couple of years.

Rare ranting on my part, ok.... I feel better now.... Thanks for putting up with that.


can of worms now opened.

Funny that Phil actually wrote what I was thinking. Again, I have a '96 Van Dieman that I plan on running in some Regionals next year...I'm thinking that the hot ticket is to simply send the engine to Sandy or Steve when it comes time for a rebuild, and tell 'em to put in the proper rods, pistons and a lightened flywheel, and announce to the world that I have done so in order to ensure everyone knows what I am up to. Then, just I'll just run FS and prove the concept until the SCCA makes it legal in FC.

In the meantime, how do we petition the SCCA for the change?

Mike Sauce, Stan Clayton, what do you gentlemen think?

Richard

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RSiler

In the meantime, how do we petition the SCCA for the change?

Mike Sauce, Stan Clayton, what do you gentlemen think?

Richard

---

Richard, my thoughts? I think FC has been a restricted-engine formula for at least a couple of decades and that if you want to change the formula that you need to come up with a plan and build a consensus within the FC community, not just say you want to "run what you brung" and that you're leaving the class until SCCA makes that legal in FC. Stan

PS - Suggestions for changes to class rules should be submitted to crb@scca.com

As this discussion started back in July, I was sorta under the impression that "somebody" was going to submit a rules change request. Thought it would indeed include the 8 or 9 Lb flywheel and the piston/rod update for the Pinto.

From there the thread sorta took a left turn and became an essoteric discussion of the impact of the aluminum head (already approved) on the Pinto/Zetec equality. Which, it seems at this point is a exercise in the theoretical as no imperical data exists. It would seem pretty obvious to me, that with the aluminum head phase in, the Zetec should at least be allowed to shed its 30 Lb burden. From there, there needs to be some dyno and track numbers generated before deciding how much to increase the 'boost' on the Zetec to get back to HP equity :thumbsup:

In the mean time, no "LIFE" saving changes to the Pinto :( So my guess is the mass exodis to Zetec (or other options) will continue through 2008. This is pretty clear from post in this thread and other threads where people have commented that they will have a Zetec in 2008.

Some here in the Northwest Region are converting FC's now. One guy is using a Zetec with side drafts (yes the one that raised the stink about the NWR's national race this year). And it's a very clean super nice conversion. No, the guy didn't mean to cause all the fuss. He's a nice guy actually. Another "FC" car has been converted to Honda power! That certainly will be reliable in FS :)

Alas poor Pinto, what shall be done?

As a side note. Does anyone have accurate numbers on the 1,2,3 finishers in ALL nationals during 2007. How many podium spots did Pinto take compared to Zetec?

This class was very stable until the Zetec was allowed in FC. Why the SCCA decieded to allow it into the class is beyond me. It should have been it's own class instead of making F1000. There is total confusion on mine and alot of other guys out there with which way to go. If it was because of a few individuals that wanted it then that makes no sense what so ever. There are more Pintos out there then Zetecs.

If I buy the aluminum head now and it really goes well then the SCCA will impose a penalty or a break for the Zetec. If it does nothing then the SCCA will allow a lighter flywheel for the pinto. If I switch to Zetec then it's going to cost a ton. Either way the SCCA has caused me to spend alot more money then I would normally have to with just a rebuild. The motor was always one thing about this class that never had to be worried about. Thanks SCCA.

The runoffs were a joke this year. Four days of qualitying with only 2 days on the track. I don't test like some of the other guys out there but either way it seemed to be a waste of money for such little track time. The lack of vendors and the whole lack of atmosphere is horrible. The weather is also to inconsistent. I liked it when it was in September.

I really wish I had the money to go to the pro series because that is the future of this class. Racing with only f2000's with lots of track time. Hmm what a concept.

Brian Tomasi

Rick your absolutely correct. we've been back and forth on this for a long time. I attempted to poll this, (I believe it was in July) and see if enough people would go for the concept and it turned into a cluster..... If half the people who chimed in actually owned a FC..... well you know, I got discouraged. well thats goes with having an open forum such as this,

Anyway

As much as I Pooh Pooh the F1000 philosophy, they did get it done, didn't they? as well, as The ztech folks... do we as a group lack the esprit de corps to band together to get this done?

I have been told by Bob Wright and then By Sandy that (and I believe them)
a) The SCCA IS open to a rules change for pinto.
b) All that needs to be done is that it be laid out concisely
in GCR type language and submitted

As evident by my posts I am not the most eloquent writer. Who among us would be willing to interface with Sandy and Steve to get consensus on the technical side then write it up and send it in.

anybody....anybody....Bueller?

hmmmmmm, thats our problem

I believe that is why Dennis and several others including myself are developing the mind set to just build something and run it as FS, and perhaps thats a alternate way to accomplish it as well, But may I suggest that the process above is really the right way to do it.....
just my .02

Phil,

I would get a copy of the F1000 proposal and modify it with the Pinto recommendations. They seemed to like that and it breezed through the approval process so it would be a good format to emulate. Your biggest battle will be building consensus as you have people that are fine with running their cars the way they are, people that welcome the changes for improving longevity and performance and people who don't race the cars but know what's best for all of us. Your first step is to get a well written proposal with Sandy, JJ, Jay Ivey, Rolin Butler, Curtis Farley and Loyning to add their support and submit it along with a ton of email support to the CRB. Someone like Sean should be able to provide an original copy of the proposal.

Joe