Printable View
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!
Darn! I was hoping that would slip by, unnoticed...:DQuote:
Originally Posted by John LaRue
Sorry Bob,I was a bit groggy this morning! I missed your reply on Tues.
I'm all for changing regs if it is a real change and someone can build it but I'm afraid that it will never happen with the fringe in control of the regs.
The one thing I learned when puting the Zetec into a 2 Litre chassis that I can not wait on the clubs system. It's not the club it is just too many voices with a stake,opinion,engine,weight,wheel etc. As history will show right or wrong the Zetec would have never come about without the pro series.
FE you are spot on in a way. FormulaE probably cost us over 750,000 from 2002 to 2008
It is very complex ,but some very bad people cost FE it's chance and robbed the Club Members of something good ,spec or not. We will never lose our control on a project again.
Anyhow,until this group can come up with something better I suggest gathering what you have and make it race. Jon
With a goofy year/weight balancing act the value of '90 Swift DB6s and a certain Citation skyrocket.
The garage queens exist largely because of budget, not competitiveness or lack thereof.
Racing is expensive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Frog
Isn't the expression "racing costs money, how fast do you want to go"? It never changes, in spite of the "new times" we live in.
I agree completely with Brian, this is a very good compromise that is fair for everyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianT1
I believe weight is an issue of cost for everyone not just the bigger drivers. It's idiotic that we spend so much money on calipers, rotors, CV's, diffs, batteries, floor pans, etc. that last half as long and require significantly more maintenance just to chase weight. Stainless floor pans, steel diffs and steel CV's last forever, standard rotors last 3-4 times longer than drilled, 30 amp batteries actually start the car when stalled on track and AP calipers are maintenance free vs the labor intensive light weight versions. By increasing the weight we reduce the operating costs and reduce maintenance for everyone. For those who want the performance advantage of less rotating mass and/or unsprung weight they can still use those parts and add ballast such as a bigger battery or stainless floor pan.
It is critical that everyone ignore the off topic discussions and focus on the proposed rule change. This filibuster over multiple car weights and other sidebar items will result in no changes for 2009 which will be devastating for the class.
not to point out the obvious Chas but no matter what the weight is the guys running at the front are still going to be running the parts you say are ' idiotic'. Diff, rotors, calipers, axles, CV's and the such are all places you dont want weight regardless of the minimum. Raising the weight isnt going to change any of that.
Although I do not race FC/F2000 I have read and followed this post with great interest as we in S2000 are about to embark down this same road... the never ending debate about parity... I like many of you, believe that can never truely be acheived and distroys the very essance of the formula that made both S2 & FC,,,
With that being said I was wondering how the proposed rules, (cams, Alum heads, Zetecs, flywheels, etc.) can be enforced... what's to stop a guy with the alum, head from running the new cam? are we going to be protesting and tearing cars down each weekend? (may not be a bad idea, as I have run against some individuals that should be protested as it is in my opinion...)
Just wondering...
In the Spirit of the Sport
Vince
Same thing that's stopping him from doing it now: nothing. At least in the Cendiv, engines seldom get torn down unless there is a protest, and I haven't seen it happen in many years. You could run a .030 over blok, lightened flywheel, and hot cam all season but make sure you're legal at the Runoffs (or finish 7th.)Quote:
Originally Posted by vlamanna
I'm guessing most classes don't get torn down except at the Runoffs.
Or as I've seen - those that do the tear down don't know what they are looking at.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike B
One of the reasons I gave up on SCCA years ago... I did care about the class I was running in, protested, items were decided legal, in one case the car in question later raced in a different region and they understood what they were looking at & correctly disqualified the car. Items in question were similar in that they could be used, but not together (IE: valves used in one version of an engine can not be used in another, cyl. head from one engine size could not be used in another).
In one way it seems like opening a bag of worms, but quite frankly on a regional level I don't think I'd really care if someone ran an aluminum head & the cam from a cast iron... it that is the only way they can win let them do it (age mellows you;)).
It does seem kind of strange though, logic would seem to dictate that a car built to the original class rules would be the baseline and any changes to the car would need to keep to that performance level.
But as Frog said... if the rule is changed I'd most likely lighten the flywheel and change the cam, extra weight might also be welcomed. Why not do it? But I still don't see the reason for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinFirlein
Not necessarily Kevin, I would much rather use a stainless floor and 30 amp battery but can't afford the 30-40 pounds they add and as you know I've always used AP calipers and steel CV's up until the runoffs this year but in the quest to save weight I've ponied up the money.
The point is many people, not just the guys at the front, spend lots of money on these things simply to make weight. Unfortunately not everyone weighs less than 135 like you and Rob.
Oh and don't tell me to go on a diet again.
Hi Chas , hope you had a good holiday.
I'm curious about your comment regarding the inclusion of the new engine rule package. How and why would it be devastaing for the formula?
Sorry but I'm out of the loop. Also where has the data come from to support a change? Is it the same group as the first parity package?
It seems a little strange to have alter all three engines does'nt it? What is the cost ,is it more than lead?
It seems that if the class in on the brink of being devastated without this package that all discussion regarding a way of avoiding devastation should be intensely reveiwed.HOW IS ANYTHING OFF TOPIC WHEN WERE TALKING DEVASTATION.
Thank You, JB
heh rob at 135 thats a good one ! Changing minimum weight will have zero effect on any of that spending. You could make the weight 1300lbs and carrying an extra 14 pounds out on your uprights is still a bad idea. As are heavy axles and heavy diff carrier. You could even try and pass a foolish rule trying to ban buying some of these parts. Except that I am willing to go out on a limb and suggest that if i buy a Citation from Steve that I can probably get that car spec'd with ICP calipers as OEM. so much for that idea.
But hey I am the guy that thinks open wheel racings , other then FA and oddly enough FV, fear of carbon fiber bodywork is out dated.
I think that was Rob Poma, Kevin.:D
I have no idea what you are saying here, Kevin.Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinFirlein
Stan, I think carbon bodywork should be allowed in FC and FF just as it is in FA and FV
That could be part of an overall modernization of the class.
Thanks Kevin...and for the record, I concur. Stan
PS - applies to FB and potentially other classes as well.
It's also permitted in F500, supposedly the lowest cost formula class. :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinFirlein
Going from memory: the original FB proposal permitted carbon bodywork. It got prohibited somewhere between the rules committee and the BOD...:mad:Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan Clayton
It was discussed extensivly on this forum before the rules were finalized.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike B
They say that memory is the first thing to go, Mike... :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Mike B
So to refresh my memory I went down to the FB Rules section, selected the show from the beginning option (default is last 10 days), then inverted the order (click the down arrow next to "Last Post"). That lists the threads from the oldest to newest.
From there I clicked on the very oldest thread (F1000 Rules Proposal from January 2006), and right there in the first draft set of rules in the first post on the first page, I not only supported carbon bodywork, but carbon tubs as well, so please don't try to hang the present rule on the CRB.
Between January and June of '06 there was extensive discussion among the members of the FB committee and lots of interested parties, during which the committee settled on a "FC with m/c engines" format for the class. Carbon fiber bodywork was a casualty of that process, along with monocoque tubs. I went along with the committee dispite my personal preferences, as I happen to think the 90% solution is better than the zero % solution... :thumbsup:
The consensus rules package appears in the July '06 Fastrack, and is reposted by Richard Pare in this thread: Rules proposal as of 8/8/06. There is some discussion of the carbon fiber issue in the thread. You appear to support cf bodywork in that thread, while Richard advocates banning it on cost grounds. The latter argument wins out and that's what becomes the rule when the BoD approved the class a month later.
All that said, my position has not changed. I would love to allow cf bodywork in all non-spec classes, just as I would happily support aluminum calipers and probably a few other things that made sense when the rules were written 30 or 40 years ago. If folks in FB/FC/FF want cf bodywork for 2010, write in and ask for it...and then support it when the CRB asks for input.
I hope everybody had a nice Thanksgiving!
Stan
Thanks Stan and I hope you had a good one too. But I don't get it as far as FC goes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan Clayton
Here we are discussing a 10 pound weight increase for the class and people are all stressed about adding more ballast lead to get to 1200 pounds. Now you want to allow carbon fiber body work which will triple the body work cost and require even more ballast to reach whatever the class weight is???
Is that really a good idea and what's the goal? Just to say you have carbon fiber and it's neat stuff? Is the lap time gain by that small amount of weight being lower in the car really worth the cost?
If you want speedy carbon, why not carbon based calipers and rotors too! :ha:
On the other hand, a carbon fiber tub (option) in FB at the current min weight sounds good.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinFirlein
I hope you guys are being facetious.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Wright
CF bodywork would help keep the costs in the class down...:confused: And we'd have to use even more ballast...:(
As rickb99 said, I sure don't think allowing CF bodywork does anything good for us.
Mmmm carbon fiber :D
stop posting and get back to work
OK I've been drinking a bit... so don't excuse me.
Would you guys stay on subject and make sure you write the CFB and BOD about what is currently proposed!
We have a chance to at least make the '09 Runoffs fairly competitive. Vote now, so you can bitch later.
Thanks Frog. Most of us would like to get to minimum but honestly how many are?? 10% of us? Maybe we can get a better package for ALL of us here.
...or don't vote and still bitch later. As for the weight issue....just what i want....to negate sweating my balls off all winter working out by adding more projectiles and debris in the inevitable oops. as for me, the extra time i'm missing isn't to be found in kevlar, carbon fiber, or any other little whizzy whatnot. it's to be found in setting up the car and driving better. and from what i've seen that applies to most of us to varying degrees. but that's just my opinion...i could be wrong...ric
Who's idea of parity is going to win? Apparently the lowly Zetec, so underpowered(reliable) that it has become the absolute spec in the Pro Series? Is there anyone who can tell me a reason that a positively-funded racing effort that could exercise an advantage that was based on cost alone in the interest of winning races/championships would not throw money at it as opposed to reliability in order to win said prizes?
I know all of our efforts in racing are for the noble cause of fun, but realistically we all go to win. No matter how large or how small your budget you still race to get your jollies and hopefully outrun however many of your friends show up that weekend.
That being said; if you were operating a "professional" racing team-and having pay/paid drivers operating under your umbrella-would you not provide the equipment to them which afforded them(paying or paid) the oppotunity for the greatest reward?
This parity argument is lost on common sense if you look from a farther viewpoint involving the most basic tenet of success. People will migrate to what brings them the greatest success. This is not a question of reliability in terms of the Pinto block. Look at what has occured in the pro series and the answer is not "reliability", it is performance. I challenge any pro series owner to declare the fact that if the Pinto is the better choice they wouldn't strap one in and go kicking tail on thier fellow competitors every couple of weeks cost be damned.
This is my opinion and mine alone, but this argument and the proposed measures seem pretty rediculous to me in light of current events and car counts. I only hope for the best for FC and the SCCA.
Thanks,
William Horn
one last time for the guys sitting waaaay in the back of the room. Why do the pro teams run zetecs ? simple. When series started in 06 the pro rules were much different to the club specs, it made the zetec a no brianer. After a season spent trying to get the zetec wrangled into line most of us felt it wasnt going to happen. We all enjoyed the benefits that running the series provided so the 1st of the new batch of zetec conversions were done. Of course over the winter a test was done to try and get the motors equal and the series , rightly, adopted the new spec but added more weight to the zetec. The added weight swung the advantage over to the pinto, but while alot of people seem to think the pro runners are funds unlimited I dont know any of them prepared to piss the $23k they spent converting into the fire. End of the day it worked out since all the front running guys had converted to zetecs there wasnt any real threat of a pinto winning in 07. That and the fact that if you did reconvert, win a race, we were fairly certain the zetecs would get an imediate power boost and then how stupid would we look ? That is why th epro teams are running zetecs. Then of course the pintos got new pistons and a new wizzy cylinder head and the zetec got.........nada.
With any respect due Mr Firlein, my question from "waaaay in the back of the room" was not why the pro teams run zetec cars, but why they do not run pinto cars if there is a competitive advantage to be gained.
I understand these teams do not operate with unlimited funding, but I also understand the point of fielding pro teams is to win races and championships. In light of the availibility of both zetec and pinto chassis and buyers and sellers of both it seems that if there was an advantage to running a pinto motor at some point the smart people running these multicar teams who like to win would own at least one of these cars to use as thier ringer. I'm sure some probably even do own pinto cars that sit while they race zetecs in the pro series.
Arguments related to car engineering and consistency do not seem to hold water here since there have not been major changes to the chassis in some time.
Well said Kevin.
Mr. Horn and those who share his position; in the fall of 2006 there was a plan for equality of the Zetecs and Pintos that still gave the Pintos a slight edge but made a good race out of it. That plan was to be implement by the run offs 2007. The Plan was simply that the Pinto and Zetec would race at the same weight and the current club engine map was the one the Zetec people had to use.
The equality plan was worked out at Summit and it is my understanding that all present were satisfied with the plan. The Zetecs would carry a 30 pound weight penalty, down from 50 lbs. That would prevail until July 1 when the rules would be reviewed and an adjustment would be made to bring the 2 engines to as close to parity as possible.
Our experience showed that at a track like Elkhart we were going to be in trouble but at other tracks things would even out. The 30 lbs was a lot to have to over come.
The original plan was out the window when the aluminum head was introduced. The equality plan for Pinto and Zetec cars was put on hold until the aluminum head could be evaluated.
Remember that the rules are effectively a contract between the club and its members. SCCA members invested their money in Zetec powered FC cars for club racing only to find that the rules were changed when we got to the track. There was the hope and desire for the owners of Zetec cars to be able to club race in FC where the cars rightly belonged.
The aluminum head changes the entire game. The "plan" now is to have parity between the three types of engines at a new higher level of performance so the race groups that include Mazdas would be more homogeneous. Now FC is starting to resemble a '70s production car class. At one time we were all FC(F2000) participants and fighting for our class. Now we fight among ourselves.
I think there are 2 groups in this fight. Those who would really like to see the class get to the point where there is no difference on the track between the engine types. And a lot of people have put their time , effort and a very significant amount of money in working to that end. And there are those who will be displeased with anything that smells of change or changes their position on the grid if they do nothing.
Not that I give a crap about this anymore, (FS here I come), but isn't the whole "parity " issue moot? Forget about the aluminum head, light flywheel, killer cam, extra weight.
Stan sez the Zetec can be dialed in to whatever torque curve you want, whatever throttle response you want and whatever, whatever.
So what's the beef? Some engine builder can take a freshly done Pinto, run it on the dyno. Map the friggin Zetec to match it and tell everyone to shut up and drive. It shouldn't take all this agonizing to make a computer controlled engine match a dinosaur.
Maybe this will go 50 pages. :ha:
And I'll return the FC when the rules stop changing. :beer:
That's just a bit overstated, but you can get pretty close.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Mercurio
That's exactly what was done. The Zetec has been remapped (with a slightly larger restrictor) to match the aluminum head. Because the aluminum head is a bit better than the best iron heads, the new cam bumps up the iron head to match the aluminum head. In addition, the lightened flywheel for the Pintos gets the clutch/flywheel rotating mass close to the Zetec equivalent.Quote:
So what's the beef? Some engine builder can take a freshly done Pinto, run it on the dyno. Map the friggin Zetec to match it...
Unless we've entirely miscalculated with these changes, that is exactly what will happen. No more changes. Period.Quote:
And I'll return the FC when the rules stop changing. :beer:
Dave
Thanks for the clarification Dave!!
I'll watch...
GrandMarnier,
Been putting that magic orange liquer in my margaritas all evening. :thumbsup: :beer:
The number one reason for running a zetec in the pro series... On many thursdays we test for eight (8) hours. Yes, eight hours. About half the life of a good pinto. Then after that we still have to qualify twice and race twice that weekend. A pro team would need a trailer full of engines and a crew that loves engine changes. Ask Team Caldwell how many pintos they chewed up in '08 trying to carry the banner. Yes, the same Team Caldwell that finished out the year driving a zetec.
Niki might have done well at Road America, a place he knows real well. But put him at a strange track where he'd have to test to learn, and his pinto would be aging as the weekend drags on.
Wait much longer to vote to the crb and bod, and your vote may not get counted.
Rick Silver and his team have put their best effort forward to create a balance.
So I can send my Pinto out to be re-done, WHEN?
(If and) when the BoD approves the package.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Horvath
One more time: write your email to crb@scca.com now.
Dave
IMO, we ALL need to vote for this.
What the FC class needs the most right now is stability. Without the stability that this proposed rule set can provide, we will be arguing about this subject for another year or two, everything will still be uncertain, and people will continue to procrastinate on what they need to do. Let's get it done and move forward!
Please vote for this proposal, and lets all get back to racing!
Dave if this the last change "period " what if the team has miscalculated?
I'm sorry is there a list of the folk's that make up the team besides Rick Silver?
Dave G. said it is fixed unless "we've entirely miscalculated with these changes," so there can still be small corrections if needed, IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by jonbaytos