Printable View
I'm pretty stupid when it comes to stuff like this. But, if you're increasing the the valve lift by .015, how do you do a regrind to obtain that additional lift? I would think you'd have to glue some material onto the lobe to accomplish that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Silver
Duration could be changed with a regrind but more lift?
Hmm-roughly about 15 cubic in of volume need removed from the flywheel. Wonder if there is enough meat there. I can figure that out, but judging by some of the responses, it seems as if some people already have.
Yup, and when you heel-toe to rev match/down shift beware not to over-rev as it is easier to do so with a light wheel until you get a feel for the lighter fly versus the heavier one.Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveW
Wow Doug says it all. Formula Ford 2000 has left the building. I hope these 29 Zetecs show up at some races in the next 15 years. SVRA
Do you think this is true for the Zetecs?Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Carter
It's completely irrelevant for the Zetecs... as it's only a computer re-map and a new TB plate. That's what, $50 at the most? The weight of these rule changes is entirely put on the wallets of the majority of FC racers around the country still using steel headed Pintos. Burdoning the majority for the sake of a few seems like a weak way to govern, but what do I know?
Not a perfect solution by any means, but at this point it's perfume on a skunk. There's nothing else to do, unfortunately, but it still smells.
We perform our own machine work in house and it was obvious 9.5 lbs from the stock flywheel could not happen. It will be interesting to see what a 10.5 lb flywheel looks like, should have one by the end of the week. The flywheel is one part you do not want to come apart! That said it really makes me scratch my head about well thought out rules change. I read much about "empirical" evidence for the current rule change to equalize the morass in FC. If I accepted that information presented, then the iron head pinto was equal with a 9.5 lb flywheel....so now we have a 10.5 lb flywheel. Does this mean we are almost equal to the other two formulas out there? Is almost equal acceptable? I understand the $$$ issue very well but do not understand how the pit keeps getting deeper and deeper. One question, is it possible to gain the .015 intake valve opening by adjusting the valve stem length or another geometric approach with the parts we already have? What happens to the duration with the new cam?
The over rev problem on upshifts/ too much throttle to sync the gears on downshifts can be cured with a clever device called a rev limiter.
You can get as much lift as you want with a regrind. You grind material off of the base circle (i.e., the part of cam on the OTHER side of the cam lobe). The cam lift is the difference between the highest point of the lobe minus the highest point of the base circle (i.e., the point at which you adjust the valve). So grinding off of the back increases the lift. Think about it - you grind .030 off of the back of the lobe, and you then adjust the valve - the adjuster is now .030 closer than it used to be. So, when the valve is full open, the valve is now open .030 more than it used to be.Quote:
Originally Posted by rickb99
Doug, of course, about the present situation, you are entirely correct. But those who chose to convert to Zetec spent much more - my conversion was in the neighborhood of $20-25K, not counting the expenses of re-conditioning the frame and new bodywork not related to the conversion. Most conversions, even for VD's, are in the $15-20K range. So, Zetec-conversion guys invested big $ up front, with the forecast that rules would be creeping for the Pinto as part of the reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Carter
This does not eliminate the fact, however, that Pinto car owners, in general, did not have the $ to do the conversion, and now to be competitive, they have to upgrade - mostly due to the presence of the aluminum head.
FWIW I count the letters to the BOD as 29 for 2 against. Tada......
Let's face it, the aluminum head screwed the pooch. I admit after the relative success of implementing the aluminum head into FF, I was for the aluminum head. Mainly for the performance advantage of lower CoG. Then the damn thing came in creating more hp than the best iron heads. :(
Without the aluminum head, the equality tweaking may have been an easier excercise, one centered mostly on tweaking the zetec. After a few years of running zetecs and pintos side by side, it was obvious to most of us a change was required. The pintos were better at top end, the zetecs were better at corner exit. The top end problem could easily be solved by tweaking the zetec. The SCCA map used in '07 and '08 'tricked' the zetec into running eratically at the low end to match a carbed pinto. But, even that the two engines had equal dyno numbers the obvious difference was the weights of the two flywheels. When the F2000 Series tested a pinto with a lighter flywheel at M-O in '07 it made a hugh difference in the cars ability to launch off the corners. So, if there were no aluminum head in the picture the equality scenerio would be a lighter flywheel for the pinto and new restrictor and map for the zetec. But... the aluminum head is reality, so the cam was needed to bump the iron pinto up to the aluminum pinto. It's that simple. The BOD has to make decisions based on the current situation, not how it was in the "good ol' days".
OBTW, the flywheel weight was a compomise. The weight probably could have been lower, but to achieve the lower weight safely, the competitior would have to start with a Ford Racing flywheel. The powers-to-be opted not to 'make' the upgrade require a purchase of that part. So they compromised it up to 10.5. ( to lower the volume on the scream meter.)
I own two iron head pinto engines. I'm sort of famous for being the second cheapest guy in racing (bested only by Formula Super ;)) and no one hears me bitching about this new decision. FACE IT, this is a decision that effects the pointy end of the national grids. Look at what Cole did last week at Sebring in an 'old configuration' pinto, or Niki at the last few Sprints/Runoffs. My attitude is; until I'm driving to the full potential of the old configuration, do i really need to rush out and update? The simple answer is, no. Will i update? Yes, probably during a regularily scheduled refresh.
Now, on the regional level... I was always in favor of getting this mess straightened out in a hurry. One reason was so the regional guys could, if they chose, petition their regions to possibly write the CFC rules to stay with the '08 engine rules. That way all the guys with '95 and older cars (who really aren't at the pointy end of the Runoffs grid) would not feel like they have to change.
I love this forum, but as readers you have to consider each author's agenda. We have ex-FC drivers, ex-series promoters, future F1000 series promoters, folks than never owned an FC, folks that got lost on the way to their MySpace page, folks that are not active racers, and others... all lobbing grenades over the wall into this thread. :)
The only person that I've read so far that I believe is honestly hurt by this is Rob Poma. There is a guy who is very quick in a '97 VD. He runs competively in nationals, and usually wins Regionals. He is one of the examples of someone, who to stay competitive, will feel he has to spend for the change if he wants to compete strongly in nationals. Honestly, he probably doesn't have to change to beat all us wankers in regionals in the SEDIV. ;) Rob has to carry a lot of ballast to make 1190, so he gets hit (as will DaveW) with having to secure 10 more pounds of lead. :( (Rob, I wrote in to keep the weight at 1190 :thumbsup:) Rob doesn't do his own engine building, so there is a cost coming at him on that side. But, to be fair, that cost is not as much as that of all the guys that converted to Zetecs with the promise from SCCA in 2006 that there would be equity.
So we all end up spending some money, or not. Hopefully this will get the class a lot closer to being fair at the national level.
For those asking if this will be the last change; probably not. I remember when the minimum weight was 175, when the cars had 1000cc bike motors, etc. The rules change with the times, or you go vintage racing.
an updated iron head pinto will not only be worth more on resale for being updated but it will retain it's value too.......a positive thing for an older car
i don't know about the rest of the country but here in the southeast division, SARRC races and Nationals involve weighing in the top 3 or 4 at the end of the race........not regionals........so not in an effort to cheat....... but to keep life simple.... if you're going to run regionals only in an older car and not bother to spend the bucks on a cam or alum head or altered flywheel......leave your weight 1190 and have fun
Okay, between two very informative PM's and Camadella above, I get the cam regrind.
Question:
If you didn't want to machine your existing one (maybe worried about flaws or being near its limit), is there an off-the-shelf flywheel that's 10.5 and a 'safe buy'? Or will all 10.5 pound flywheels be a remachine?
Cheapest way is to machine the existing one given the target weight ($100?). I know Steve Knapp machined a Ford Motorsports flywheel to 9.5 but felt it was unsafe to go any futher. The stock cast flywheels are the most problematic, hence the 10.5 lb limit (I can't help but wonder how many stock flywheels are on currently used motors? Any national motor would have had it replaced many rebuilds ago).
Frog, as usual, has cut through the B******* quite nicely :D
I'm curious as to where or how others intend to add 10 lbs. of weight.
I've never thought about having to do that.
I find it interesting that there wasn't any complaining when the new pistons came out last year for the pinto. They cost more to buy and install than the cam or flywheel and make as much or more power but not one person complained.
This is a very good compromise and is probably the fairest thing that could have been done given the time, data, cost of R&D and range of opinions. Is this the last word, probably not, but it certainly is MUCH closer than what we had before and can be fined tuned. It also makes the engines perform similar to one another which they didn't under the old rules. I've been testing various restrictors and maps since last June and can tell you the new package drives very similar to the pinto.
For anyone who wants to complain about the rules process or results I suggest you get involved and spend some of your time and your money to aid in the process. All the track testing, dyno work and other R&D is done by members who fund it out of their own pockets using their own vacation time.
My thanks to Quicksilver for all the dyno time and cam R&D to make this rules change possible as well as Summit Point for the track time to test.
On a positive note, if you install all the new performance goodies you shouldn't have any problems with the FM's and FE's that tend to mix it up with us on the straights.
Wow, is your 84SF really that light? ICP calipers, etc?Quote:
Originally Posted by JHandley
Our 89SF with a 185 Lb driver is crossing scales at 1253.
Bolt some lead up in the front casting. How much under are you?
Dave G.
Did the ignition timing for the zetec get included in the new rules package? I know the zetec cam timing was mandated in Fastrack last May but the ignition timing was not addressed.
JHandly,
The two best ways to add weight to your car is replace the 15 amp battery with a 30 amp battery (adds about 8-12 pounds depending on manufacturer) and use stainless instead of aluminum for the floor pan (18 pounds in a modern VD if .063 stainless is used). The benefits are a car that starts all the time and a floor pan that lasts forever. If I was a really light I'd use .080 stainless.
The opposite opinion of yours isn't whining or complaining—just not your viewpoint, that's all. There are a lot of opinions and views on these forums of rules for every class. Everyone is entitled to their opinion here, and a right to discuss both sides of the argument. Some may have more or less stake in the new rules, some might have tens of thousands invested in their cars, some may be financially benefiting from the new parts to be sold or modified, and some may just be interested in seeing the class not eat itself. Whatever it is, there is no need to abuse those who have differing views on the subject. Most people are in favor of progress, it's the changes they don't like.
Good or bad, the plans are in motion to change the class as it was this time last year. I hope, for the sake of the class, that these rules work and this class continue to grows on the club level.
“Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.”
- George Bernard Shaw
at 1190 i already had lead in the car bolted through the belly pan - right under my knees - just in front of the battery
Doug Carter - Well said
As a side note, Dave Gomberg took the time to call me today and to let me know how the board came to the decision - I appreciate the effort even though we will not agree on this one. enough discussion - lets race
Thank you
David Keep
Reynard 90SF
Heck, I remember the 1170 lb minimum weight - and with my car in its present configuration, I would have to have ~35-lb of ballast to meet that! Right now , I am planning to have to carry up to 75-lb of ballast (part of which will be extra-heavy parts, added 1/8" steel floor-pan, etc.) to go with the smaller, lighter wings we will probably use for fast tracks (read Road America).Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Frog
Yes Rick,Quote:
Originally Posted by rickb99
With me at 200 lbs, which is not easy to keep on, my reynard scales right at the 1190 lb mark, give or take a pound or two. LD 19 calipers.
And the 84 doesnt have a front casting.
Should I try to distribute the weight throughout the car?
If it wasnt so late in the winter I would probably try to redo the floorpan as suggested, but the battery thing may work if there is enough room.
I really have a very limited knowledge of all the FC technical issues but I am curious about the new alloy cylinder head. When they 1st discovered that the engine made more power with the new head why didn't they change the casting of the ports to reduce the HP to the same level as the iron head? Another alternative might have been to slightly reduce the compression ration with a slight re-machine of the combustion chamber.
There can't have been to many out there when they ran the dyno testing early on in the process.
Thanks ... Jay Novak
How does one distinguish between the Ford Motorsports Flywheel and the stock one?
Jay,
The head was designed to produce more HP from the outset per Doug. As he told me, he was not going to make the same design errors that Ford did in laying out the ports. This was however not what was told to the FC community or the BOD when it was proposed. The head was proposed as a direct replacement just like the 1600. It was also supposed to have tamper proof ports and not be subject to additional porting.
The problem as I see it was that the head was approved before there was a sample piece and objective test results. There also were no specs outlined in the proposal; everything was quite vague and premised upon oral representations. If I recall correctly the BOD simply passed a proposal that said the Fast Forward Aluminum head would be legal in FC.
When the head was finally released the compression was too high and the ports were not completely cnc'd, but required some hand finishing. When the issue of performance and no further porting was raised it was pointed out that none of that language was in the proposal and thus not in the GCR.
John,
Along with you, I was never comfortable with bringing in the aluminum head - there were (and still are) too many unknowns. How it was ever legislated in w/o any samples or performance data is beyond me, especially considering how many hoops we had to jump through and how many long delays there were in changing the rules to bring the Zetec in. And then there were all the delays in making them similar in performance to the Pintos.
Oh, well, not much can be done about all of that now. Hopefully, it will work out for the best.
Wow. Is that really what happened? That's a pretty big misunderdstanding.Quote:
Originally Posted by John LaRue
I'd like to ses some evidence that the BOD (or whomever) acknowledges this major screw up and has taken steps to prevent it from happening again. I feel bad for FC competitors (especially iron head guys - 90%?) and hope SCCA leaders have realized they hurt not only that class but the reputation of Club Racing and SCCA. Members should get to see an explanation with convincing evidence that whatever allowed it to happen has been fixed. Just show us the club is learning from mistakes.
Why not require a thicker head gasket?
Jay
That was one idea; the combustion chamber however was re-machined once it was caught by QS.
I'm somewhat suprised that nobody proposed an alternate cam for the alloy head cars. Why not dumb them down in h.p./ torque to what a good iron head engine made.
The reality is, the iron head is a difficult animal to make a base line off of. What do we know about the Quicksilver Iron head that was dynoed? I have a dyno sheet from an iron head pinto, an alloy head pinto and a Zetec and I would say that the head used as a test mule is an "average" head. Does it now mean that a top level iron head with the new cam and flywheel will be the engine package to have? I guess we'll see...
All I know that is factual is that young Morgan flogged around that old clapped out DB6(no offense Jim ;)) with a tired iron head pinto at track record speed at the Flordia nationals. The point I'm making I guess is that a well driven car that is 1-2 h.p. down can with the runoffs...yes, even at Road America.
It is a stressed member in certain chassis was the reason I heard most frequently.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jnovak
akilcoyne,
offense taken, we pride ourselves on using fresh body tape every session!
Cole uses it on the car, Jim uses it on HIS body.Quote:
Originally Posted by jim morgan
Chris,
there is a difference between rolls of tape and rolls of fat!
John- The BOD was told that the head would be identical to the cast iron head only made from aluminum.The engine builders and the CRB wanted this badly.We were also told that strict tolerances on location of valves,porting and a clear definitive way to inspect them for modifications was mandatory.That did not happen and thats why we have the issues.I think the latest CRB rule for equalization of the Zetec,Alloy head and cast iron head pintos is going to get us close.I believe we will still may have to slow down the alloy pinto but we will wait and see.The BOD has put much trust to all involved on the alloy head and the latest rule set to achieve a better situation for FC.The FC community has almost unanimously endorsed this new rule set.I believe it is a work still in progress but time will tell.Remember we make decisons on info brought to us and from member imput.We are suppose to trust the system and the members involved in it.Sometimes it does not work that way. Mike SauceQuote:
Originally Posted by John LaRue
If the aluminum head that was produced did not meet the specifications that were requested, ie it was not identical to the iron head, it should have been rejected. Are you saying that the BoD received a head that was different from what they requested and approved it anyway?Quote:
Originally Posted by M.Sauce
[edit]
I have been 'enlightened' on some of the details of the steel headed Pinto issues as well as the new aluminum head—among other things.
There are a lot of messy factors in this entire program, and I only hope that everything evens out in the wash. It's too bad that there are so many factors in this that are invisible to the regular SCCA racer. :(
My goodness, let's put this dead horse in the ground and go racing...