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
Printable View
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
Sand every body panel until light shines through. Aluminum floor. Aluminum radiators. Mag wheels. Every fastener should only be as long as it needs to be. Drilled rotors. Drilled axles. Lightened CV joints. No oil cooler. No radio. Aluminum diff. You'll spend more money than a Reynard is worth.
Frog;
I don't remember weight being an issue in the late 80's when Reynards were the dominant car. I ran the Canadian Tire Series then and weight was not something we were worrying about. It was the French Canadian drivers, old and young and a young kid from Toronto that were the ones to keep up with.
We even did standing starts. Cars made the minimum weights.
Steve,
Late 80's... that would be at least 7 coats of paint on those old Reynards since then. ;) Paint ain't light.
Aluminum panels are standard thickness - intrusion protectionQuote:
Originally Posted by Purple Frog
Have it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Frog
Have them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Frog
Have them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Frog
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Frog
Total disassembly in process. Haven't found any over length fasteners. Except for, 1/4" wood lag bolts holding the lower side pod rails on.. Duhhh
No, no, no.. that's over a $1,500! Let alone light weight ICP's. SighQuote:
Originally Posted by Purple Frog
Don't have either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Frog
Original gel coat.. no paint :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Frog
Still at 1253 with 185 to 190 pound driver. Seems like that 53 or 63 (or 78) pounds would cost at least $2,600 to get rid off. We're happy as is, but we'd be 14.5 pounds closer with the 9.5 pound flywheel and a 1200 weight :)
WOW....it's not officially winter yet and we've maybe got the thread that amounts to the annual winter "class/engine/chassis" digression that everyone will post ad nauseum to......at least this one has real potential for outcome vs. whatever idle fingers have posted about FF over the many past winters.
it does not necessarily follow that simply because CF vs FF differ not for engine or weight but only because of a suspension difference that a possible CFC vs. FC difference will have the same engine and weight consideration too. it sure does make it easy for a CF to get into a FF national grid remember. so maybe the rules of CFC and FC should at least make it easy for a CFC to also run in a national FC grid.
conclusion.....CFC and FC = 1200 pounds and CFC and FC = same engine rules.
if CFC amateurs are out there for the pure fun of it then the pure amateur should not care what rule may or may not favor some FC national only car/driver at a national....and if the national dude shows up at a regional then the possible CFC that is not running CFC should just take their FC lumps and enjoy the opportunity to have gotten out on a track. Remember the SeDiv no longer has a CFC class....that i would qualify for.....and that's OK with me. I don't mind losing to some bigger budget FC driver......it doesn't really matter they beat me in the grand scheme of things in my life.
I thank those who have given unappreciated sweat to this issue. I like what has been proposed..........not that what i think matters.....but no one seems to be mentioning that CF = FF in most respects....so it seems reasonable that CFC and FC be fairly equal too.......or maybe it doesn't seem so to you......blah blah blah ad nauseum.....and it's not even officially winter
If the theme here, and Dave W's intended message, is to encourage FC participation at the highest levels, then I agree.
I entered probably the oldest car in the F2000 races at Mosport and NJMP. My '97 (and my driver) gave some Zetecs a run for their money. We were competitive at club nationals at Summit Point and Nelson Ledges this year.
I'm not ready for CFC. I'm still aiming for the pointy end of the grid.
That's why I'm opposed to a weight increase. Why make it less attractive for the "second generation" of race cars to compete with the "first generation"?
EYE second that very thought!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by EYERACE
My Reynard is very close to the 1190 minimum now, at grid, as long as I can keep my body weight up, which for me has always been a problem.
The 1200 lb minimum weight as proposed is not insurmountable, but it does give me another in a long list of details that I need to tend to as I embark from my novice season to my first season of real competition.
I dont favor a weight increase but will abide by it if it does come to fruition.
I really am not concerned about being at the pointy end as they say, I am realistic as far as my expectations for myself and my reynard.
I do not want to be penalized if indeed there comes the necessity for my car to be weighed.
Good Morning, I think that what Steve proposes could have some merit with a bit of polish. The idea would give the " early" chassis some value in terms of competition.
To me it would be much more sensible path to balance competition with weight than engines. Also I bet more economical. Maybe we will contest the 2009 pro with 95 wide track VD's!!!!! with Pinto's
Sounds good Steve, how do we refine it a bit? Jon
PS Not sure what's being said as I did not have time to read it all , but what does this have to do with CFC.
Good one Steve: Why not let the chassis year determine the weight? The record is there, early chassis offset their aged areo package and technology creep with lower weight. Set an upper limit for the newest chassis and let it go. No need to penalize the new chassis with an excessive weight.
Clean and simple. Maybe too simple to implement.
Weitzenhoff WINS! The value of those 94-95 Citations soars!