Yes, engine specs are pictured below (am trying to add some humor)Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceRace
Printable View
Yes, engine specs are pictured below (am trying to add some humor)Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceRace
First of all, I'm not complaining (as we are a regional car runner). How does this effect us even though we don't (or have not yet) run Nationals? Pretty obvious that if not done to ours, it effects the resale value and, eventually (hope we can keep racing) those whoop-te-do engines will come into regional events.Quote:
Originally Posted by TimW
Point being ANYBODY who owns an FC is effected over time. This isn't "just" a National and Pro Series issue.
We did 5 race weekends (broke car or would have been 6) in 2008 plus a track day of testing. For 2009 (praying for a good economy), we'll probably do 7 to 8 race weekends.Quote:
Originally Posted by John LaRue
Now, IF AND ONLY IF the idea of NO Federal Income or FICA taxes for the Feb/Mar/Apr is enacted by Congress.. maybe 8 to 10 weekend!!!! :thumbsup:
For the answer to that you have to go back 8 pages. But here's a link to the actual as pronounced proposed rule changes. Start reading bottom of page 6.Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceRace
http://scca.com/documents/Fastrack/0...strack-dec.pdf
Yeah, and the will be parity between the 3 packages. One will always BE ASSUMED to be better then the other 2. What happens in 3 years when the runoffs moves to a tight drivers track???Quote:
Originally Posted by rickb99
As I understand the situation:
Zetec package is suppose to help save the class by supplying a relativley cheap per mile power source.
No manufacturer builds a car specifically for the pinto motor.
The lightened flywheel may add some longevity to the bottom end, but the zetec will maintain at a higher performance level for a longer period of time and the cam does nothing for longevity for the top end, may not hurt it but does not help.
The newer cars (vd) require expensive upgrades to make 1190 with a typical driver. I was told that very few of the participants at the ro came in close to the weight. There only being one weight for the class makes it easier for the techies.
The alum head is a done deal, so it is now the standard, the iron had was raised and the zetec remapped to match the dyno curve.
John
Doug, I'm sort of surprised by this statement. After looking at the dyno curves do you really believe the zetec owners have nothing to complain about? How would you feel if you spent $20,000 under the premise that parity would be achieved by mid year 2007 but what you got instead is what's in those dyno sheets and 30 extra pounds?Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Carter
Rob, I lobbied strongly to restrict the aluminum head so the steel head guys wouldn't have to spend money however I was told the CRB will never allow it, you can guess why (see my previous posts).
What I find really interesting are the steel head owners who feel its unfair to spend $400 for a cam but they don't seem to care about the new pistons the CRB allowed without member input that cost a lot more than $400, make almost as much HP as the new cam and require a complete rebuild to install. I'd like to know if the pinto curves on the dyno graphs had the new pistons as well. Either way, $400 for a cam, $200 for flywheel lightening, $800 for pistons = $1400 more to your next rebuild.
Of course that's nothing compared to the $20,000+ zetec owners spent converting their cars under the premise that parity would be achieved by mid year 2007.
I have to say that QS has done an awesome job achieving this proposed compromise. They've invested countless hours of dyno time, track time and phone time over the past year working this solution. I've been really impressed with their dedication to the class, willingness to help and above all else their integrity.
Why does that Pinto engine exist? I am currently using one as a mooring for my Sailboat.
Chaz Fatboy
I wouldn't be seen dead with a Pinto engine no matter how much better they make it. Plenty of ways to cheat with the Zetec, Run 2 ECU's in the car with a switch. How about soaking your tires for a couple of days in 55 gallon drum.
Chaz Cheatin FatBoy
its going to be one cheatin year, sodium filled vales here we come
Chaz FatBoy
Chaz Cheatin,
Thanks for buying my video "Cheatin' My Way"
I own a 1991 DB-6 with a QS iron head pinto. In my hands it is a top regional car and a weak national car. In Cole's hands it can compete with Niki at Topeka and in my opinion anywhere else. While well engineered it is not a high expense setup.
Converting to Zetec is not an option for us since the frame will not take it without modifications more extensive than converting to FF for a profit.
In the period since Zetec was introduced we (Cole) has run FC Natioals, Cooper Tire Zetec, Cooper Tire Gold Cup [(Pinto) in three different cars ,the DB-6,10/10ths Van Diemen and Mark Defers car Van Diemen. Db-6 and 10/10 were top QS iron head, Defer was top Elite] and the F2000 series in St. Clair Zetec.
As such I think it is fair to say we have extensive experience with every engine except the aluminum head and a variety of maps and tire combos with the constant of a top driver.
In 2006 John La Rue and I had a interesting debate on line he was complaining about the Zetecs disadvantage and I was complaining about the pinto disadvantage at the same time. The only difference was we were in Gold Cup on Radial heavy tires and he was in club racing on light tires.
Move to 2007 F2000 with equal maps pro series heavy radial, pinto no chance because of torque,zetec no chance at SCCA because of no tire advantage and top end.
At this point in time all the reliability,expense and disenfranchisement arguments are clear. There is a disparity that needs to be resolved.
The best way to promote this class is to support the proposal. Those at the pointy end can choose between the alternatives and move forward and even mix and match to suit there needs track to track(racing can be expensive).
Anybody who is racing these cars for fame and glory is pissing in the wind. The kids come through and leave in a year or two if they are any good. Would't the rest of us rather have full fields with reasonably competitive events (F2000 for the last 2 years).
My vote is yes!
Everyone can claim to not be chasing Niki because he is just going to be whooping on everyone anyway however Cole in the DB6 would be THE one everyone is chasing at Road America, that is a fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by jim morgan
Sorry for the off topic, irrelevant post
1 drivers school, Waterford HillsQuote:
Originally Posted by John LaRue
1 Great Lakes FC/ CFC Challange/ Waterford Hills Race weekend 4 races
1 Waterford Hills Regular Race Weekend 2 races
1 Mid Ohio Regional Weekend 2 races
Plus qualifiers
8 races total
Maybe it's just me, but I would never spend $20,000 on anyone's premise or promise. You trusted the SCCA rule makers to have your best interests at heart.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chas Shaffer
I understand Doug's point ..... but ..... this is amateur car racing in North America.
I feel like we all take a giant leap of promise everytime we spend a nickle in this sport. All those racers who put deposits on FE cars. I built my FST car when there was no class. Fortunately a dozen others did too. How many $100Ks were invested in the FB dream. Now the F600 plan is spawning. All these classes now look like they will shape the SCCA future, as will a retooled FC class.
None of it makes any more sense than any other selfish hobby. Those of us that stay involved, find some level of contentment that keeps us chasing that promise. I do not believe it can be rationalized in any way.
Cheers!
Agreed—we all take leaps of faith with anything we buy, especially in racing. However, when we make a decision to spend LARGE amounts of money to convert an already legal car based on hypothetical rules or information about what might happen in the future, and it doesn't pan out as we had anticipated, there are only thumbs to point in blame. Complaining about it to the majority who still campaign legal cars doesn't make sense to me.
If you built a FST, FB or bought a spec FE and the class never took off or the rules didn't develop like you had expected, who's fault is it?
I'm in the process of buying a Formula Ford. A dying or dead class maybe? What if the class disappears completely? Who's fault is it that I own this car?
Yes, the SCCA said that there would be Zetec equality in 2007 and it hasn't quite happened yet. But spending $20,000 to convert a $28,000 car on a leap of faith is a high risk vs reward endeavor in my book. You pays your moneys, you takes your chances...
You are absolutely right Doug. I just thought your comment above was a little harsh .... considering we all do it. Pity the poor guys who bought into the Shelby CanAm concept :)
Or the Toyota Sports racer! Think about how many times racers have been put in a position to believe that there would be a future for a class of cars. We should all know better from history with the SCCA.Quote:
Originally Posted by problemchild
Yes, in a perfect world, parity within the class and the three different motor/head options would be a nice thing, and would more than likely build the class stronger. Yes, when the SCCA made the assertion that there would be competitive balance by 2007, it has proven to be untrue. Yes, it costs a lot of money to jump in the shallow end with both feet and make a Pinto FC into a Zetec FC. It's a risky move for any racer.
But the balance of the competition should NOT infringe on the majority (iron head Pinto) of for the sake of making one option more balanced.
I'm all for the changes proposed, but I disagree with the options necessary to bring the iron head Pintos into focus (the majority of the FC racers in the country). Reducing flywheel weight, adding a new cam and then ADDING more weight seems like an unreasonable solution to a problem that didn't exist before the aluminum head.
^
^^
^^^
^^^^
^^^^^
^^^^^^
^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^
^^^
^^^
^^^
See he gets it.
What Doug said.
Amen. There ARE guys with slim wallets who run Pintos as very few slim wallets run Zetec as best i can tell. This is indeed AMATEUR racing folks. If you want to go pro, go Mazda series or higher and have a team around you with a budget to match. Want a real rush, cough up $25k and rent a Porsche for the Daytona 24 and be supported by TRG.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Carter
ANYWHO, if the whizzy guys want to <cough>invest<cough> for all the whizzy ZETEC bits that is their choice. Just PLEASE do not drag the Pinto guys into the money-bucket of who has the bigger... in this AMATEUR league. Some of us on the sidelines could easily buy things... yet DRIVING TALENT is key imho versus the guys who show up in $$$$$$$ cars. Seen too many guys with more money than brains/talent on the track... a few whom i have had the honor to know have paid the ultimate/final price in the past few years due to their lack of realistic personal assessment.
Apologies for soap boxing.
Bottom line: leave the Pinto guys alone. If you want to chase the money-bucket, perhaps it is time you take it to the pro series where that game belongs. Or better still, move to Europe and get ready for possiblity some serious reassessment.
What I'd like to know is how do I get one?:D
Just one more 2c here...
Remember that history dictates when there is both a Pro and Amateur class with all rules aligned, it grows and stays strong. It also helps with the "investment" value of even the older cars. I think the object here is to have a set of rules where all FC's have the ability to carry as close to the same power as possible. There will always be good and bad motors in the pinto ranks- (don't ignor that the Zetecs are all a lot closer to the same power output) and not all cars and drivers are created equal.
Never the less, lets make sure that someone can start in a driver's school, graduate to regionals, nationals, and Pro within a unified set of rules in a car that can retain at least some value.
I am, by definition, an amateur. However, I converted to Zetec for largely financial reasons. So, while my budget is not small (I historically have spent $20 - $30K per year racing, EVERYTHING included - tires, engine rebuilds, travel, motel rooms, wreck repairs, etc.), the conversion looks to me like it will break even financially in around 4-5 years, and from then on, cost me less due to not needing a rebuild and new expensive parts for my Pinto engine every year or so to remain competitive.Quote:
Originally Posted by enjoythetrack
The cam is a new one. It was chosen from among three "test" grinds done by Elgin as the best match for the aluminum head. Until the rules package is approved by the BoD, the cams will not be produced in bulk (I'm sure everyone can appreciate that business decision).Quote:
Originally Posted by RacerDave51
Dave
Just a CURIOUSITY QUESTION:
There's been mention of this new cam costing $350 or so.
You mentioned 3 cams were looked at. Were any of the Esslinger cams considered? Just curious because their cams for 2.0 and 2.3 liter engines are only $180 or so. Complete kits with cam, springs, rockers and retainers are in the $350 range.
Would it be Elgins intention to sell COMPLETE pacakge at $350 or is that just the cam?? IF complete kit from Elgin, can you buy (will you be able to buy) the cam alone and use your favorite engine builders other parts?
I don't know maybe it's just me. Seems odd Esslinger can sell 2.0 liter cam grinds for $180. But (on Pegasus) SCCA legal cam (with followers) is $399 and a new Elgin will be $350. Appears to be a few 'extra bucks' in there somewhere for saying SCCA legal.
Just an educated guess here... No one would make a cam that basically duplicates the stock one with the exception of just a tiny bit of intake lift increase. Other than for this specific purpose, who would pay the $ to buy it? So I'm guessing that any non-stock replacement cam would provide too great a performance increase. This, IMO, had to be specifically made for this exact purpose.Quote:
Originally Posted by rickb99
IIRC, all the Esslinger stuff provides big boosts - and a lot of it above 7000 RPM, for heads that can have a lot more porting mods than ours. Same with the cams from the UK.
I doe-no Dave. They make six different grinds plus a semi "stock" grind. Prices are all the same.
Just seems odd that 'our' cam ONLY is $350 while Esslingers "KIT" with all the goody's is that price. Just makes me curious what they would have charged for a stand alone cam with a modified grind to meet this spec? Considering the 'market size' if this is passed, I have a feeling it would be closer to $200 for the cam.
Makes me mad every time I think about it. We fight and struggle with the reliability issue with our 2.0 liter road racers. While the circle track guys (and Esslinger parts) are screaming along with power bands from 4,000 to 7,900 RPM RELIABLY!
NO, we don't wanna go circle track racing.
NO, I don't want another 100 HP out of the Pinto. But it seems to me they've addressed a lot of the reliability issues in ways we should look at.
Relevance of the above to this thead? The cost issue.
The Frog has been lobbying for as long as I can remember for a long rod being allowed.
The Crower Rods and J&E pistons if allowed in the long rod version should take care of any reliability issues, IMHO.
One might think to allow some anti-friction coatings as well. Even if you move the pin all the way up into the oil ring I don't think the rod ratio gets as good as the FF engine. Better than nothing though.
I was going to post the Esslinger cams specs but cut and pase is not working from .pdf
[FONT=Times New Roman] [/FONT]
The price for the cam will be under $200 if your existing cam can be reground (the expected situation). If you need a new blank, it will be under $300.
Other cams were not tried. The goal was to improve the current cam to match the aluminum head. Going in, Elgin knew pretty much how to do it. It was a matter of doing three slightly different grinds to hone in on the best match. Other cams would have been shots in the dark.
Dave
Prior post talked about being able to regrind my existing cam (maybe) for 200.
So, I remove it, send it to them and wait for how long before I get it back and can go racing?
Can you imagine the wait at first, since all pintos will HAVE to do the upgrade?
Need to have a VERY quick turn-around in order to be able to get by with one cam and less $
otherwise, I have to spend 350 for the new one so I can make a race while my original is waiting to get reground.
Now I am up to 550 for this upgrade??? so, just buy a new one and throw away the old one. use the 200 to buy front tires.
:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by rickjohnson356
Yes, if you want the added 3 HP as shown in the charts and maybe 4 HP once your tuner of choice gets done with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by RussMcB
What ever works. We'll be doing the best we can with what we got. It still takes a driver :)
That will be my plan this upcoming season!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by rickb99
Work on my driving skills.
Perhaps I sounded too angry in the post. I meant it to be more cynical (sp?).
In general, I am supporter of making the FC cars more 'equal' as can be reasonable, after all, that would bring things back to rely more on driver skill (which I don't have)rather than big$$$. But there is no way that I can be fooled into thinking that a 4 hp increase in power will make my ancient rocker-arm car (1991) competitive with a 1998+ VD pushrod car even if I was a good driver.
The cost of the mods for the Pinto guys are actually peanuts when compared to the Zetec conversion costs (18K?) or AL head at 4K. I'm just not interested in spending that much additional for either of those two options. RickB and Jeff are right, I am not required to do it, but for the $300 it would be the least expensive way to get a little closer. It would elimnate the 'what f I had done it? question when I came in after a race.
Would it make the difference between 5th place and 3rd? Only one way to find out...
If they can do a cam swap on exchange basis, that would be the best compromise.
My 350 figure came from the cam + shipping + gaskets + something for my time as well.
Rick here's an old rocker car that goes pretty well...
Chuck Moran has the fastest FC rocker car out there. I have seen him run the Run Offs more than once and he does a great job of moving that 1990 vintage Crossle 71F. He holds the Mid Ohio CFC track record on the long course. A few years back I seriously looked at one of his cars he was thinking of selling and chatted a while. He has done a lot to sustain the car and tune it to his driving style and run that car(s) for many years. I think that he had somthing like three frames and parts enough for several cars. I kind of wonder how he would do if he had a modern VD
Howeer, thinking about Chucks car makes me think that the definition of parity we have been talking about is rather narrow. If we wanted true parity in the class we should look at the several generations of the cars and find ways to make 80's & 90's Reynards and 90-95 VD's competitive with 1998+ VD cars - I think it would be great to see a 87-90 Reynard brought to parity with a 2001 VD and running up front. NEVER HAPPEN... but think of all the cars that would suddenly come out...Maybe a few of us should get with the CRB and put together a proposal around that idea - bet that would stir up the troops.
David Keep
It would be fun to watch but a Tech Inspector's worst nightmare...Quote:
Originally Posted by FC63F
I absolutely agree with David regarding making the older generation of cars more competitive.
I was going to start a separate thread a while back on a significant weight reduction for older cars. Jon B. then mentioned it and I wanted to see what the response might be.
I figured it was a cheap, easy and quick way to gain more parity without any additional engine mods.
I would like to hear all ideas, questions, concerns in this area.
Rob Poma
it's Friday, surely the BOD has already met by phone this week, what's the answer? there's been no advocacy posts since Monday .............
Art
artesmith@earthlink.net
The main reason I bought my 1991 Crossle 71F was the fact that I had been following Chuck's ventures at the runoffs for a couple of years.
Since he does so well at the runoffs, I figured that it would be a superior car at the regional level, which is where I hang out.
So far. the car has been very competitive, even against 95 VD. Mark Hatheway turned a 1:09 at Savannah with the Crossle car.
Art, the BoD has a face-to-face this month, which commenced this morning in Topeka. IIRC the meeting lasts through Sunday noon-ish, so we may not hear anything for several days. StanQuote:
Originally Posted by Art Smith
Chuck's car is very well developed. Not to mention the fact he is very a talented/skilled driver with a ton of seat time. I have watched him race since I was a kid and now I am 33. He was my instructor at Driver school! And yes he drives the wheels off that car. Looks like we are off topic again. Someone plesae lock this thread :beer:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Owens
Trouble maker!! :p
:beer::beer::beer:Next week!!
Well, somebody knows what happened but they just aren't willing to talk in public. Guess the 'word' is spreading by phone calls, text messages, low frequency communications with submarines and smoke signals.
You notice they already made public that T3 will be in the run-offs without making the numbers. But this important stuff can wait :)
Well what's the word. Can I start grinding flywheels or not. Two engines in rebuild. Somebody? Anybody? Rudolph says yes and Santa said maybe???? I think everybody thinks it's a done deal to themselves. "Officially" what was the outcome.
It is my understanding that the BoD did not vote on the Zetec/Pinto engine equilibration formula as the 30 day member comment period has not yet been completed. I have also been told that the BoD will revisit the matter at the January meeting. The official note on this is at the link below posted by the Chair of the Comp Board.
http://www.sccabb.com/forum_topics.asp?FID=73
It is essential that interested parties continue to voice their opinion to the Comp Bord and BoD on this matter. More member input is needed.
This is typically STUPID!
1st 2009 Double National is 3 weeks away and drivers don't even know what the 2009 engine rules will be???
Sure, sure I know. Run as is then rip the car apart and change if it's passed.. LOL
Glad we live out west where the season starts in April AND, we have a very good alternative to SCCA (but we do prep to the same rules).
Engine sitting on stands, Ivey down the road. "Hi Jay, here's the engine. Stand by." Geez.
An example of why the OTHER santioning body has a BOD meeting in November. Rule changes propossed by DRIVERS (in September) are voted on by DRIVERS (through a CRB representative meeting from the 5 member clubs) and if passed, only reviewed by the BOD for any very serious problems. The CRB can offer some changes for clarification or 'improvements' to the rule in front of the BOD. Then the BOD votes on the original or alternative and the rules are FROZEN for the next competition year.. A good deal.
One meeting about rules, once a year then EVERYBODY in the room heads for the track to drive, work a specialty or crew. Efficient, effective and energizing.
Two questions....
We've seen the power curve - what's the torque curves on all three engines look like?
Using a re-ground cam - what does it do to the very critical rocker arm contact pattern / valve length issue with the Pinto 2.0 SOHC engine? Might be it's not going to be a simple ".. just replace the cam" issue.
By definition, the relationship between horsepower and torque is:
Horsepower = (Torque x RPM)/5252
From this, one derives:
Torque = (5252 x Horsepower)/RPM
Now, if two motors produce the same Horsepower at the same RPM, they will produce the same Torque at the same RPM. To put that another way, if two motors have the same Horsepower curves, they must also have the same Torque curves.
In the case of the FC engine package, while the three Horsepower curves are not absolutely identical, they are quite close within the useful RPM range. Thus, their Torque curves must also be quite close in that RPM range.
By the way, a dyno measures torque directly; horsepower is calculated using the formula above and is then presented pictorially as a graph.
Dave
Rick, If i cheat in january and they change can i appeal and win? Another classic cluster ****.