Pinto Equality

Up front I'll make a prediction. If a top notch driver takes a well prepared FC zetec to the Runoffs with the HPT course unchanged from last year, they should win the race.

OBTW, the F2000 series ends in August so there will be at least 15 top flight zetecs idle...

What do I base such a prediction on?

Looking at the results from 26 seperate sessions, of about 30 cars each session, at VIR, Road Atlanta, WGI, Cleveland, and most recently Mid-Ohio. Driving the pintos have been the likes of such drivers as Minor, Defer, Weitzenhof, Clawsonn, Burke, Gilkes... wankers not. Something over 8000 laps of records so far.

Tires are not an issue, because they are all running the same tire. The Hankooks are around 22 lb heavier than GY or Hoosier bias slicks.

The cars are runnning SCCA GCR legal, albeit heavier. F2000 pintos min. weight is 1210, and the F2000 zetec min weight is 1240. A 30 lb. difference. In the GCR they are also 30 pounds apart, 1190 to 1220 for SCCA club.

What we have seen all season is that the cars are fairly equal in most aspects except the pinto lacks 'grunt' to get out of slower corners when compared to the zetec.

On a very long straight, a pinto able to draft a zetec, might have an advantage at the far end. Like the straight out of Oaktree at VIR. Any pinto top end advantage did not show up at WGI or Atlanta.

So at a track such as Cleveland, a pinto that might qualify 2 seconds faster than a zetec, finds than while on the track he can not get by the slower zetec. Once slowed down behind the slower car going into a corner, the pinto looses the drag race to the next corner by a large enough margin that there is no safe way to attempt a pass on the slower car. Much like racing an FM with a pinto.

But separate of that issue, we have not seen a pinto in any session get close to being competitive with the top 5 in terms of lap speeds. Today at M-O a course Defer knows very well, he's still over a second behind the top zetecs.

Tim Minor earlier in the year said that it would require a change to the pinto of a 8 lb. flywheel. (the zetec has a 8 lb. flywheel already) On dynos where you are testing top end HP the engines look very close. But in reality in those situations where torque is needed the current 14 lb. pinto flywheel is holding it back.

Tim saw the rule would not change fast, sold his pintos and converted to a zetec.

Now at the Runoffs the cars will be able to be 20 lbs. lighter, and run super sticky slicks. I believe that might even add to the zetec advantage.

You read it here.

**********

Talking to Sandy (Quicksilver) it seems the two solutions for 2008 are:
1: Tune down the Zetec with a ECU program change.
2: Let the pinto have a 8 lb. flywheel.

As of today I strongly support option #2. Let me explain why.

The currennt GCR rules for the zetec with SCCA map annd restrictor have created a very well balanced racy engine configuration. The zetec owners are happy with their package. (they would love it even more if they were unnrestricted ;) ;) )

Slowing down the class is not good for the health of FC as it now faces competition for participation from classes such as FE and FB. Let's not make the FC unattractive by slowing it down.

Pintos current have either cast iron flywheels or bilet steel ones. Almost all the top national drivers already have the steel ones. The steel ones can be lightened at a good machinne shop for probably around $100. The cast iron models can not be lightened to 8 lb. safely.

Sandy says new 8 lb.steel bilet flywheels would probably cost around $400.

In some ways the lighter flywheel could aid in extending engine lifespans. The reason FF lightened their flywheel recently.

The lighter flywheel would not be mandatory. You could stay at 14 lb. if you desire. Change when you want to, just like FF did.

In fact in regional classes such as CFC let the 14 lb. flywheel stay the rule, thus not effecting regional cars that are not nationally competitive.

We are currently track testing a pinto with an 8 lb. flywheel. I hope to have the driver post all his reactions to the change early next week. I believe you will like what he has to say.

For $400 or less you get a real neat performance boost, and a fighting chance to fairly race against the zetecs.

With the lighter flywheel on the pintos, if we get the engines better matched, we might then find we are able to lower the weight differences between the two cars (pinto vs zetec) to lower than the currennt 30 lb spread.

Nearer the end of the F2000 season I'll probably be sending in my formal request to the CRB for 2008.

What about the Aluminum head?

I think that you might argue that the Hankook favor the Zetec by being heavier and slower in the corners. Where as Avon tires favor the Pintos, especially on longer tracks.

The upside of all these changes (heads and flywheels) is that FC may run better with FE and FM. If all the changes could bring FC to the point where it has the same time on the streights as FM and FE maybe FC competitors would be more inclined to participate in club events.

The down side is that any way you look at it it will cost a lot to stay at the front of the FC grids. With competition adjustments to "balance" the various combinations, FC is now as political as any SCCA production car class.

Maybe we should turn the discussion to how we test and decide on parity and where parity should be. Not for this year but for next year. Maybe we try having the competitors negoiate their handy caps something like Pink on Speed Channel over several early nationals.

OK now there is show that I would watch!

I think Cole M did some low 26's at Mid-O last year with the Keyhole in place.They say that it is worth 2 sec. The record is a 23.6 from M Dismore in 1999 on spec yokos. I'm inclined to think that Steve has hit it on the head. Seems that a lot of changes at one time when there has not been a proper evaluation done .Alloy head has'nt even been seen. It took 5 years for the Zetec to become an overnight success,how is it poss that alloy head is in 5 weeks.Flywheels,heads,maps,coversions,weights.It seems that you will have a lot of variables who is going to test all this,and how? 3 different engine combinations in fc who would have thought?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buudrow1

3 different engine combinations in fc who would have thought?

---

There has been just one year in the past 20 that FC did not have 3 different engine combinations, Jon, and that was 2006. Up through the end of the 2005 season FC permitted the old 1600cc air-cooled SuperVee configuration, as well as the 1100cc motorcycle engine (which caused quite a splash at the 2005 Runoffs, some may recall...).

Starting in 2007 we have the iron Pinto, the ally Pinto, and the Zetec. Nobody has pretended that these are a perfect match out of the box, but we will work our way through it and the class will be stronger for it in the end.

Stan

the Frog makes a well documented and rational case for a lighter flywheel for 2-liter Pinto's to improve "parity". change unfortunately like coins always have two sides. it's my sense the current 2-liter Pinto flywheel is the principal reason there are not more "explosions" from missed shifts; the inertia that hampers acceleration from low speed corners is the same inertia that hampers run away acceleration to its "grenade line". I fear that a GCR change to 8 lbs flywheels will hasten the demise of the 2-liter Pinto engine in FC. racing 2-liter Pintos with a propensity to explode on missed shifts will increase the cost of ownership AND hasten the depletion of the available inventory.

I"m with Steve on this; let's see where the community is with "parity" after the arrival of the aluminum head. it's hard to imagine a new aluminum head based on the lessons learned from the cast iron Ford head not having an improved horsepower AND torque curve. while those using the new aluminum head will have to weigh more I'm guessing the center of gravity of the car in the rear will be coming down.

again echoing Steve's point, the "parity process" is a far bigger concern to me. what is the sample size? what is the sampling interval (ie: how many races/tracks)? and most importantly, how are the samples selected? does investment in Pinto or Zetec engine technology assure the competition gets a "parity adjustment" from the rules makers or is the investment advantage diluted by 1/N where "N" is the number of competitors using the engine the investment was made in???

Art
artesmith@arthlink.net

Stan, I think that my point is why would you not have the alloy head at least built into a running somewhat developed proposition.
Then assemble a Pinto,Zetec,and Alloy version at the same track,with the same driver on the same day run by the same team on the same tires. Also with all the conversion's to Zetec going on at the moment,and most likely the future how are the pinto's or the head availabilty in question.Not to mention the fact that there are 25% less entries than 5 years ago.there must be 3000 race prepared Pintos out there,in that bunch there has to be enough to see everyone through until the Zetec is in full swing.
I'm sorry but I fail to see how the intro of an alloy head will help build Ford 2000 grids. Did not seem to have an effect on Formula Ford grids. The phone calls that I get are not about a lack of engines or heads.The issue that has to do with entries is an all together different problem.

Sorry forgot the new flywheel,I thought that the beauty of the Zetec was that it could be slowed down if required?

Having watched several Cen-Div Nationals this year I had it in my mind that a BUMP in power or a weight reduction was in order for the Zetec's to be competitive. Seeing several top FC drivers some 2 seconds off the pace at Blackhawk and Road America ( a tite twisty track and a wide open track) I don't see your prediction coming true Frog. The Zetec's are still pretty much handicapped. Just a view from the stands.

Dave

Understand I'm not involved as a 'knowledgable person', but I have two questions.
1.
A lighten'd flywheel would 'improve' the life of the engine because of a reduction in the rotating mass (that's a good thing). So why would you deny it to your poorer brotheren in CFC? From the sound of it, the cost is about as low as you can get for improved performance and life.
NOTE 1: From other posts I can intuit the price of an aluminum head. That won't be in our budget fer sher.
NOTE 2: How about allowing iron headed cars to run lighter flywheel but aluminum heads keeping 14 Lbs. then no weight penalty?
2.
Over rev on missed upshifts? I thought our soft-touch rev limiter would minimize that issue.

Frog's points are well taken if you are running on the heavy and hard Hankooks. On the soft and light weight club tires it is a different game and the Pinto is at a definite advantage.
Simply stated the Hankooks are requiring the cars to slow much more in the corners and this is giving the Zetec an advantage. On soft tires the cars are not slowed as much and hence the "advantage" does not exist. Likewise, the extra mass of the Hankook would probably give favor to the Zetec.

Comparing the two is like comparing apples and oranges. SCCA however for the time being seems to be paying more attention to what is happening in the pro series than to what is happeing in their own club racing events. Give the Pinto 6-8 HP and more torque with the aluminum head, better COG and a 5# weight advantage on the Zetec with light sticky tires and you would be insane to show up with anything else at HPT.

FWIW, I just returned from MO and took times coming out of the keyhole on the field during qualifying. Excepting the cars that were having obvious problems there was less than .1 sec difference between the fastest and slowest car over the distance I was measuring. I did not know most of the cars, but in looking at the times DW was 3rd quick, Morgan was quickest.

Very good points John. Especially about the difference in mass of the Hankooks. And about the relative cornering speeds between Hankooks and sticky tires. Points worth investigating for sure.

But I do believe on "stickies" the zetec will be going through those corners just as fast.

I'd like to see it get to where the zetecs and pintos are the same weight. So... give the pintos 8 lb flywheels, and lighten the zetecs 30 pounds. Sound good to you?

I'm thinking that HP gets quick laps, torque wins races. ;)

"trap speeds" can be deceiving... not knowing how good each driver gets out of the previous corner. But I'm not at all surprised that Cole and Dave are the best at getting out of the Keyhole. :thumbsup:

Maybe tomorrow DaveW will upset the 8500+ laps of data we have gathered so far this year. ;)

I agree that the SCCA club rules should represent club racing. But how long will it take them to build up the data? Hardly any one is playing. We need top shelf zetecs on stickies running club events to get the good data.

Now next year F2000 is possibly moving to a softer compound. (It's being tried in the Pacific Series this weekend at Miller.) With a softer compound (higher corner speeds) the pro series data will get more applicable to club racing? Maybe.

Glad to see you all thinking about it.

Yes, the Zetecs on soft tires will go through the corner as quickly as the Pinto. The point was that the cars are not slowed as much on soft tires and therefore the "advantage" that the Zetec has at that lower rpm/speed in pro spec isn't realized in SCCA club racing.

While there may not be as many Zetec FC's running in SCCA, that is not an excuse for not recognizing the differences and monitoring what has happened in club racing. Using cars on different tires in race conditions at different weights and disregarding the results from a controlled test does not make sense to me.

In Cen Div myself and Steve Tompson have both been racing the Zetec regularly this season and when we ran together at Sprints qualified within .1 sec of each other. I think ours could be considered "top shelf" cars. Interestingly enough if we just look at the Goodyear shod cars to take tires out of the equation, Chas was quickest and was just at .9 sec quicker than me. I was the 2nd quick GY car and Tompson was next quick less than .1 sec behind.

The more I learn about this problem of equating to very different engines, the more I am convinced that the SCCA officials will not really get it right for the Run Offs. One or the other engine is going to be dominate.

I also think that inspite of all good intentions, an equitable handicap formula is not possible given the differences between the Pinto and the Zetec.

In order to get a workable parity between the Pinto and Zetec, both eninges are going to have to change.

First, the 8 lbs. flywheel is a must for the Pinto in addition to the aluminum head. Basically the bottom end performance of the Pinto needs to match that of the Zetec. If we shoot for engines in the 155 HP range vs. 145 hp then it should be easier to match performance. This may require a cam or other changes to the Pinto.

Second, we need to repeat the test of last fall at more tracks to adjust the Zetec map to achieve parity.

When people are observing the Pinto vs. Zetec performance, are they taking into account any differences in down force levels. I got a report that the Zetecs were quicker on top end Mid Ohio. The superior low end performance of the Zetec may allow less down force for better top end and the low end acceleration may be offsetting lower mid corner speeds. John's split times only measured time through a section of the track.

The side advantage of this approach is that the revised FC will run stronger in club race groups that involve FM and FE by reducing the streight line speed disparity between FC and FM/FE.

I wasn't going to chime in here, but with some of the posts, I'm sorry to say that it is now a necessity.

While trying to base an assumption of what the differences are between the engines by looking at the results of a series of races may sound logical on the surface, any decent engineer will tell you that it is very misleading. There are way too many uncontrolled, and unknown, variables that come into play that can skew the results.

IF you want to know with any degree of certainty EXACTLY what the differences are, and therefore establish a true data base from which to formulate changes, it can ONLY be done in a series of controlled tests.

To do such a test will take a minimum of 2 identical cars (identical right down to the shock valving, wheels, tires, gears, fuel, weight, weight distribution, bodywork, wings, friction treatments, the data system, etc) performing blind accelleration tests between selected rpm's, in specific gears, with some of the changing test variables being the tires (rotational inertia changes), and wing settings (drag changes, wich woul have to be verified by coast-down tests). The engines would then be swapped between cars, and the tests repeated. The test would be better is there were 2 samples each engine/car combo, and could eliminate the necessity of the engine swaping.

Such a controlled test system is the only way you will know for sure the differences in engine characteristics. While race data seems to point in a certain direction, it is by no means definitive!

Even with all that, though, don't expect to make the 2 engines truely equal - one will always have certain better points than the other under different circumstances.

RP

To an extent that is what was done last November at Summit. The test did not go as far as what you suggested, but it was much closer than what would otherwise be realized in uncontrolled race environments.

JL

True - which is how they came up with the current "equalization/handicap" or whatever anyone wants to call it.

And repeating that test, but a bit more in-depth, is the only way that the true differences will be quantified, NOT by looking a race results!

Richard,
I always agree with you. ;)

My understanding was that at last fall's test at Summit they didn't even weigh the cars at the track. And the focus was more on top speed than low speed 'grunt'. But, give them credit, it was a lot of good folks donating their time and money to try to solve a problem as best they could. :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: And, remember anything I post as Purple Frog is my personal opinion, not in any way, shape, or form the opinions of the leadership of the F2000 Championship Series.

I agree a controlled test like you describe would be wonderful. Not sure it will happen. Lot's of costs, and not universal incentive to make it happen.

But, I can't easily just dismiss the 8500+ laps of records I've gathered this season in real racing conditions, where the participants were trying their darndest to go as fast as they could. John is correct in saying that it is obviously pro series statistics, and I acknowledge the tire differences in Club may alter them. But no one else has 30 cars running flat out on the same day and time, on the same track, on the same tires, with the same fuel, with impound checking their weights, and ECUs, etc. Real world.

I started this thread as my personal prediction of what could happen at HPT based on my notes. Just an opinion.

In the other thread on aluminum heads I wrote:
What seems like a long, long time ago there was a committee that moved forward a plan to migrate the zetec into FC. And I'm sure many involved thought the 2007 Runoffs were a long time off in the future when they were working on the plan in 2005. I remember, like you mentioned, that the parity date was to be July 1, 2007.
I'm not sure I could dig up all the old email discussions, maybe we could find it in old Sportscars or Apexspeed archives. So we agree the weights should be equal by now. I'm not sure the CRB agrees with us.

The whole time the zetec migration plan was being designed there was no Aluminum head on the visible horizon. It's entry into the picture does add a big unknown to the original plan.

I did send in my single opinion to the CRB back during the Aluminum head debate saying I was in favor. I understood it would be close to equal in performance. Knowing that the zetec engine package was about 40# lighter than the pinto engine package, i thought a lighter pinto engine would help the COG characteristics of the pinto cars to be more like the zetec. Plus I remember being told it would be easier (thus cheaper) for the flow magicians to perform their art to aluminum vs cast iron. Maybe (probably) I was dreaming it would more likely more of us would get copies of the best head porting, that has historically only been available to a few. But in my letter to the CRB I didn't want them to add weight for use of the aluminum head. I thought it would be good irregardless of powerplant for the FC class to get a bit quicker, because of lap speeds of FMs and FSCCA cars at the time. Selfishly I wanted the FC to stay the most attractive class. I was thinking that if the Aluminum head did produce a few more HP, then the board would bump the zetec map up to match.

Now that time has passed and decisions have been made along the way, I dream a revised plan for 2008. OBTW, this is my personal opinion and not that of the F2000 Championship Series in any way, shape, or form.

What I would do if I were king for 2008:

Pinto cars with aluminum heads and 8 lb. flywheels and a min wt. of 1190.

Map the zetec cars with their aluminum heads and their 8 lb. flywheels and a min wt. of 1190 to match the best pintos in HP.

Then both cars would have basically the same engine mass, the same HP, close to to same rotating mass, and the same weight.

The aluminum heads and light flywheels on pintos would not be mandatory, just an option. Obviously one that serious national contenders would probably have to implement.

And as king i would mandate that regional CFC classes would run under the 2006 rules with cast iron heads.
While I was king I would probably allow the pintos the longer rods and shorter pistons. ;)

But, I'm not king, won't be king, don't want to be king.

[quote=Purple Frog;144069]Up front I'll make a prediction. If a top notch driver takes a well prepared FC zetec to the Runoffs with the HPT course unchanged from last year, they should win the race.


Well... now that I have seen pictures showing that they are making the changes to HPT.... I'm off the hook. ;):rolleyes:

NEW prediction: Nicki wins with his pinto.

Wait, wait! DaveW may be going.... let me think about this...:confused:

From DaveW's post on another thread:

Lap times during Sunday's "race" were interesting...

Almost 3 seconds/lap difference between Zetec best time and Pinto best time on Sunday with everyone on cold tires due to few green laps (Saturday, it was only ~1.2 seconds with everyone having run enough under green to warm up the tires), again confirming that if cornering speeds are low, the Zetec has a HUGE advantage in acceleration.

John,

Backs up what you're saying. :)

I'll say it again as we are/will/do have a somewhat vested interest in this topic as the owner of 2 CFC's.

I can understand (maybe) denial of the aluminum head to CFC cars to keep the cost down in that class (no we can't spring for one). However, if the light weight flywheel is also deny'd to CFC's (at such a reasonable cost), that would be a huge disadvantage. There would be no point in striving for some national points to possibly attend the runoffs with a steel headed/ 14 Lb flywheel. CFC cars that could run some nationals and maybe attend the run offs are pretty much closed out of the competition with 2 strikes against them. What's the next thing? New pistons and rods for National engines only (smart mouth remark, I know)?

It would be one more reason (in a Region NWR that's struggling just to keep its ENTIRE racing program going) not to run the two SCCA Nationals or regionals. As it is, FC/CFC have gotten 0 entry's in the Oregon and the Northwest regions (easy points to be had). There are cars here running in ICSCC, but they haven't been running SCCA. It was our hope to revitalize interest in the class and maybe bring some of them back into SCCA.

I've been a HUGE supporter of the SCCA since 1958 (way back when I was a kid and Tracy Bird was the Chairman of the Board and my friend). But with the $75,000 D/SR's (our first plan) and now potentially being deny'd some reasonable upgrades (lightened flywheel in particular for the budget minded) in CFC it just makes full time ICSCC racing look much more tempting and the heck with the extra cost of running SCCA.

Many of the things being discussed, new design head, lighten'd flywheel, newer technology pistons and rods would improve the life of the engine. Why would you turn around and say 'okay CFC, sorry you can't have them'. Just live with the old stuff and shorter engine life for old time sake. Hmm that sounds like a familiar song from another show.

P.S. 1: Although I cannot find it now, I swear I saw the aluminum head on some parts site listed at over $4,000. It's gone now, but I stagger'd when I (think) I saw that.

P.S. 2: If the new head geometry and design proves to need 1/2 the freshinings and rebuilds of the steel that would make it more interesting to CFC's too.

Now back to your regularly scheduled technical discussion. And no, despite the above, the SCCA stickers will probably stay on the car(s).

Well... yes, it would be in the $4,000 range from my discussions with the engine builders. It is an expensive sport.

But about your CFC issues. There is no reason in my dream world as acting king, that you couldn't petition your division to allow aluminum heads and light flywheels in CFC. I was just proposing to keep it cheap in CFC with the older cars.

Obviously, if you are thinking about running national races and qualify for the Runoffs, then you would have to run some national races as a FC and then you would be able to have the lighter flywheel and head (in my plan). No restriction at all. If you run nationals, you are a FC and you play by FC rules.

I guess you were thinking of jumping back and forth between CFC and FC. :) Something about the cake and eating it also. ;) But it is only 2 hours to switch flywheels back and forth, not that big of an issue. Or just leave the light flywheel in. :tire:

Okay Frog, I've calmed down now. After the above I went and destroyed a BIG carpet shampoo'r with a hammer and screwdriver to put it in recycling. Very therapeutic smashing plastic and yanking wires out. :cool:

Shucks I see your point about the flywheel. We are just on the process of meditating on cracking the rear end off the engine for the first time to repair the slave cylinder. 2 hours you say? We figure a full day to open it up :) 2 days back together. Of course we could change flywheels once we are up to speed.. Duhhh. I suspect it would be a real let down to put the 14 pounder back in though :tire:

The second point you could have mentioned now that I've calmed down is; Balderdash, we're one out of 3 or 4 FC's running SCCA within 800 miles. Who cares which class we run in. But on behalf of the older car owners, the above could apply in regions with big CFC fields with drivers running national/regional. If the aluminum head has some longivity factor to it, CFC's would certainly want it too. And the same goes if the "KING" gets newer pistons/rods approved!

Rick, thank you for your nearly 50 years in SCCA. Not many of us will see that number! :D

As I am confident you understand, SCCA does not recognize CFC as a class separate from FC at the National or Regional level. So, just as the Fast Forward aluminum head is approved for any FC, if a lighter flywheel is approved, it too would be legal for any FC in National or Regional competition, irrespective of the vintage of the car in question. If individual Regionals draw up more restrictive criteria for a CFC Regional series, that will not affect the participation of older FC's in National competition or Regional competition.

Hope that helps...Stan

Edit: I did not see PF's or Rick's replies before typing my thoughts...adjust accordingly.

Ohhh gosh Stan. My comment above was misleading and I can understand that upon rereading it. I was a member back then as a late teenager and didn't realize what I was witnessing with the beginnings of the SCCA. Tracy Bird was a family friend and I was there when Jim Hall called him to propose the birth of Can-Am racing. The days when Hall and Bondurant, Balchowsky (Old Yeller), Hap Sharp and others would show up to do the weekend warrior thing for fun (zero profit). It was the start of a romance with road racing that's lasted longer then my marriage :eek:

I DO NOT have 50 years as an SCCA member but I've supported the oranization in other ways. After my 'stint' as a driver, I 'unjoined' and stayed away for several decades before rejoining. However, I followed events in SCCA throughout that time. Despite the 'troubles' I've always considered the SCCA the only game in town. Sad to see all these other sanctioning bodies pulling racers away from SCCA :thumbsdown: At the local level I see no difference in the comraderie, quality of the local administrators or quality of racing in SCCA-NWR then there was back in the '50s. Something has changed to lure all these racers away from SCCA and I'm still trying to figure that out. Perhaps when we get back on the track, it will become clear.

As a regular 'worker/volunteer' I don't see the problem except that the SCCA (here)doesn't hold enough drivers schools like some other santioning bodies. SCCA seems to count on the $4,000 schools to provide them with 'club' drivers. Whereas the other sanctioning groups hold a school once a month, packed full and cheap. And I think the lack of promoting the regional weekends to the public has hurt driver recruitment. Some things are different then they were back then (for the worse in terms of getting drivers on the track).

Sorry for the misinterpreted comment there and the off topic comment here. I'll be more careful in the future.

P.S. - What ever Frog wants, it will probably be good :)

I just panic'd. When we started looking at D/SR a very few years ago, it was a $20,000 deal for a serious car. Then went NUTS in short order. Hate to see that happen in FC now that we're in it. Or be deny'd performance/reliability improvements because of age. Yes, it's clearer now with Frog's reply.

Now that I've had a couple of days to collect my thoughts, I thought I'd weigh in on this whole thing. Sorry- this is gonna be long...

I volunteered to test the light flywheel this past weekend at M-O. I offered to do this after Cleveland, where it was clear that our car was at a massive disadvantage. As Richard pointed out, none of this stuff is from a controlled test, so I will include all the info and let you take what you can...

First, my background/ experience in FC... in 2005, in addition to my FF effort in Cendiv, I did several Pacific F2000 events. All were in a restricted Zetec. In 2006 I raced a Zetec in the Cooper Series. This year, I've been driving a Pinto-powered 2001 Mygale. We've raced at Atlanta, the Glen, Cleveland, and M-O.

Although this is a new car to me, I've been very happy with the handling from the beginning. The car is about 2.5" narrower than the current Mygales and VDs, and I have no idea how much that hurts us, but I can tell you that the car is damn fast in the corners. I'm not sure it sticks quite as well as the top cars, but it is certainly better than the cars I normally end up running with. Our engine was fresh from QuickSilver at the beginning of the season and Sandy assures me it is a very strong national-level engine.

We have been the fastest Pinto at every race we've been to. DaveW got pretty close this past weekend, but we did get into the high 26s in practice. Our best times at Cleveland, WGI, and M-O have been about 1 sec off pole.

At Cleveland, although we turned a 17.3 during warm-up, we qualified for Sunday's race with an 18.6, which put us back in 16th. During the race my group was running 19s and I was unable to pass anyone. The Zetecs were just too strong out of corners. I'd get a good run on someone out of the last chicane, pass under braking into T1, and then watch them drive back by in the next chute. I left the race convinced that, without some changes, the Pinto could never be competitive with the Zetecs.

For M-O, the series gave us permission to try a light flywheel. We used a custom unit from Quartermaster that weighed 7.5#, and we also ran a 5.5" clutch. I was extremely pleased with the change. The flywheel made the engine a lot more responsive and forgiving (much more like a Zetec). The car was a lot less sensitive to gearing and didn't lose nearly as much time when I let the revs drop (following a slower car, lifting after a mistake, etc). During Thursday's test we were actually able to pass Zetecs! On Friday, we ran a 26.8 (leaders were high 25s and low 26s) and I felt the car probably had a 26.5 in it.

I'm afraid the rest of the weekend didn't go as well as I initially hoped. We struggled in qualifying and the races and I felt like we ended up being down on power, even compared to the other (legal) Pintos. I'm not sure why, but I suspect the head may be due for a freshening. Someone pointed out that a light flywheel will result in bigger over-revs, and this is true- it does. I missed a couple of shifts over the course of the weekend and may have tweeked a valve (no rev-limiter). We were also on old tires, which I'm sure was hurting us coming out of the keyhole. At any rate, I don't want our lack of performance on Saturday and Sunday to cloud the issue. The lightened flywheel is a damn good idea.

I plan to race a Zetec next year. The reliability makes it a much more attractive package- I know I don't have to worry about whether my engine is tired, or if I messed it up with that last missed shift, or whatever. However, I believe that the series needs Pintos, and it needs them to be on equal ground. I watched DaveW struggle in mid-pack these past couple of races and I know how frustrating (and expensive) that can be. We need rules that allow a national-level Pinto to be competitive. I personally think that the aluminum head is a bad idea- by the time you get done with your yearly re-build and purchase the head, you might as well sell your Pinto and convert to Zetec! I think the flywheel is a much better option. You can bolt one on is a couple of hours, it doesn't cost a fortune, and it makes a big difference.

I also think it's possible that the Pintos are at a bigger disadvantage on the current Hankooks than on national tires. Probably not because of lower cornering speeds, but because of the additional rotating mass, which may highlight torque discrepancies. Even so, I think that if Cole showed up at Topeka with a Zetec, he would be the guy to beat.

So, where do we go from here? A proper test is in order, along the lines Richard suggested. I think the lightened flywheel makes the Pinto more similar to a Zetec, which is a good thing- we aren't trying equalize vastly different engines. The flywheel also makes the Pinto easier to race, so it won't get left behind every time the driver hits traffic. Let's make that the standard for Pinto and work from there.

If we find that heavy radials place the Zetec at a bigger advantage than the club tires do, then we ought to adjust the Zetec accordingly. It is a hell of a lot easier to re-map the Zetecs for Pro and Club than it is to change a head or a cam in the Pinto. We need to make the Pinto competitive in both club and Pro and then adjust the Zetec from there.

-Clark

Nice report. Thank you for being the lab rat.

I know this is an unscientific, apples to oranges comparison, but here goes:

Last Friday night at dinner with Jesse Yorio, he told a bunch of us that we needed to drive Willow Springs sometime, that is was a screamer.

So...I was trying to find the FC lap record at Willow Springs, possibly the fastest average speed track in the country. It looks like it was set by JR Parrish back in '95, at 1:19.877 (112 mph), and a lot of SCCA records were set there back then, the last time the track was paved? But 112 is screaming, just like Jesse said.

It looks like maybe some pintos have come within a half second or so recently. How JR did it - tow from a slow atlantic? We may never know. Before AMBs...maybe? :skull: Hand timing could be spooky at times.

This spring the Pacific F2000 folks made their first visit to Willow. Mitchell Cunningham ran a 1:18.493. That's busting JR's record by 1.5 sec, and current attempts in pinto cars by better than 2sec, and that's on hard Hankooks, 8s and 10s, but near perfect conditions at 72 deg, 30 in Hg, and no wind. It was about the same conditions when JR ran it based on weather underground historical data info.

I know the pacific guys run a slightly different map, and spec aero compared to the FC Zetec open aero rules, but Les tried to achieve pinto parity, and at least publically Les still believes a good national Pinto can beat a Zetec, but I think the Willow results might point to strength favoring the zetec, even on high speed tracks.

Also, possibly busts the 8" vs 10" tire debate on fast tracks. Some of us thought the 10s and 8s would be too much drag at high speeds.
Or maybe there just are not any strong pintos out there these days. :confused:

I haven't raced with Hankooks since last year so I can't speak to them accurately however I can say that I've run against zetec's driven by Chris Fahan, John LaRue and Steve Thompson at Watkins Glen and Road America this year. With Chris and John we were on the same tires most of the time, I'm not sure about Steve. In all sessions I felt my pinto was at a big advantage. Interestingly when I put on the Goodyear radials which are as heavy as the Hankooks I was even quicker. It's also worth noting that my car is heavy. I'm within a few pounds of the current zetec minimum weight with bias ply tires and way over it with the GY radials. My point is I don't believe the pinto is at any disadvantage, if I did I would have been screaming about it.

In the interest of accurate comparisons it does appear Chris is having some sort of problem with his car. I'm not sure how much it is impacting the bottom end of the car but it does seem to impact the top end. I was all over him in the boot which is where the zetec is suppose to be better. Chris and I ran a half dozen laps nose to tail specifically to see where the differences were. I eventually powered past him and pulled away.

In my opinion the pinto is not at a disadvantage at all. There is no reason to mess around with the rules yet, give it time and collect more data before making any more changes. If you're going to change anything change the zetec. If you think it needs to be slowed down coming off the corner put the twin clutch back on it but don't mess around with the pinto's, there are too many of them out there. If it were up to me I wouldn't change a thing. Keep the rules STABLE.

The problem with waiting on data Chas is that in the interim anyone who subscried to builidng and running a Zetec with the understanding that they would be even as possible as of 7/1/2007 is beign screwed. Admittedly the Zetec is at a disadvantage at this time in SCCA; you have seen it as has anyone who has been to an SCCA event. Unfortunately the Club is more interested in looking at what has been occuring in the Pro Series than in its own events and controlled testing.

I have a good, well sorted car and I know how far back we are. Unfortunately I took the word of everyone that things would go even on 7/1 and that this would mean a weight reduction. I put my funds into running SCCA this season and am not pleased with the back peddling that has occured. I have tested the car with and without the weight on multiple occasions and it means the difference between being on or off pace. Why should I or anyone else with a Zetec run SCCA events to allow more data to be gathered? Where have the powers that be been all season when myself and others have been racing the Zetec? Why would anyone spend the money and time to show up to race if they did not have a fair opportunity to run for a win? If I would win it will certainly be because of the engine and if I don't it will certainly be because of my lack of driving skill or car set up.

So far there have been no good answers provided to me as to why the weight was not reduced. The only "data" that is being referenced is the Pro Series results which is not worthy of consideration for SCCA spec. How long would the Pinto guys keep quiet if SCCA mandated the hard Hankook's?

New heads, pistons, flywheels and other items for the Pinto are a seperate and distinct issue from equalization. I can see good and bad coming from their inclusion/exclusion. Mapping and equalizing the Zetec should not be an issue if/when those parts are brought on board assuming that a fair effort is made.

I am one of a very small group and perhaps the only one from the group who is speaking up about this. It will not get much attention, but I and other Zetec owners will eventually speak with our pocketbooks; many already have and the Pro Series is testament to that. FC is not dying, it is simply leaving SCCA.

Hi John,
At this point I'm just trying to head off rules changes making the pinto even better.

It takes time to get up to speed on the Hankooks and no one with a Pinto that I'm aware has a full season on them where as all the front running zetec teams have almost 2 years on them. I think it was Firlein who pointed out that they guys who converted from pinto to zetec this year are further off the pace after converting.

I'm putting my car back together as a zetec so I'll know pretty quick how much I'm down. Then the whining will really begin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Purple Frog

I know the pacific guys run a slightly different map, and spec aero compared to the FC Zetec open aero rules, but Les tried to achieve pinto parity, and at least publically Les still believes a good national Pinto can beat a Zetec, but I think the Willow results might point to strength favoring the zetec, even on high speed tracks.

Also, possibly busts the 8" vs 10" tire debate on fast tracks. Some of us thought the 10s and 8s would be too much drag at high speeds.
Or maybe there just are not any strong pintos out there these days. :confused:

---

Actually we are currently on the same map as SCCA but more weight. We didn't get to see what Pintos could do at Willow Springs but there is no doubt that a Pinto has an aero advantage (narrow tires, small scoop) at California Speedway. On the other hand I expect the Zetecs will be well under the Pinto record at Sears Point next month, especially with the C91s.

As John says, "FC is not dying, it is simply leaving SCCA." That is certainly the case on the West coast. If FC makes a comeback out here it will just be because a few Pacific guys have bought a set of small wheels. Meanwhile we sometimes come out and run as Atlantics- for practice. SCCA? shrug...

I refrained from commenting on this until now because i wanted to solidify my thoughts before I opened my mouth. I am going to base my comments mainly on (1) acceleration - my experiences coming out of corners onto straights, and (2) comparing top speeds on the straights.

Cleveland:

1. Acceleration:
Although I was nowhere near the proper setup, there were many occasions when I came out of corners just behind a Zetec car at the same or higher speed. On every occasion, the Zetec car would pull away by many car lengths, especially out of the low-speed turn 1. The difference was still there coming out of the higher-speed corners, but wasn't nearly as large.

2. Top speed
When I would be near a Zetec car on the longer straights, I was able to keep up, and on some occasions, get a good draft.

Mid-Ohio:

I got the setup fairly-well dialed in, and was able to brake extremely well, carry very good mid-corner speed, and exit the corners at the same speed or better than almost anyone I was near. However, during the Saturday race I was still ~1.2 seconds off the best Zetecs, even though I turned the fastest Pinto lap. I could not draft-pass anyone with a Zetec. However, I could stay close enough to outbrake them at the end of the straight.

My conclusions:
1. The Zetec and Pinto-engined cars were well-matched for HP on top end (higher gears). The Pinto cars may even have an advantage in top gear, where the rotational mass difference has little effect.
2. Coming out of slower corners, or accelerating in lower gears, the Zetec cars had a VERY large advantage, due to the throttle response of fuel-injection, plus their lower rotating engine mass.

If I take all of this into account, it appears to me that, in their present form, everything else being equal, a Zetec car should have a significant advantage over a Pinto-engined car on any track that requires repeated accelerations from slow corners, independent of the tire selection. The added weight that the Zetec cars have to run at does not appear to be enough to equalize the low-speed acceleration. The Hankook radials magnified this, mostly due to their hard compound, which resulted in lower cornering speeds and harder acceleration. The tire rotating mass effect would be pretty equal, no matter which engine was used.

Of course, all of this is just my opinion, so take it for what it's worth.

Mmm...after reading some of the above comments, I'm at a loss to explain the different observations and results between the experiences of John and Chas (and I would presume Steve Thompson as well) racing in club events vs Clark and Dave in the Pro Series- all known, well respected, proven drivers.

:confused:

See below. Jet lag has numbed my fingers and dulled a few other things...

Dave, I don't know if it's fuel injection throttle response or just that the Zetec engine is more torquey than a 40 year old ex-tractor engine, but the Zetec is much quicker than Pinto coming off the slow corners. That's the first thing ya notice when you switch from Pinto. But that extra burst of speed off the corners don't exactly mean faster overall lap times when you add in the weight penalty. Top end speed with the dumbed downed ECU is about the same as the Pinto....very, very, boring...

I think everyone needs to stop comparing random Zetec's to random Pintos and start comparing driver performance in Zetec to the SAME driver's performance in a Pinto. At this level I can tell ya it don't make any difference in my case whether I'm driving Zetec with 8x10, Zetec with 6x8, Pinto with 8x10, Pinto with 6x10's, Goodyears, Avons, Hankooks, or whatever.. My times are all roughly about the same. And this is on twisty corners like Sears Point where I do quite a bit of testing/driving on. Of course, I don't have a squad of race engineers tweaking everything on my car after every session either. Most of the time it's just me at the track doing it all.

And I've seen other drivers after their conversion set similar times that they did in Pinto.

---edited to reduce length and idiocy----

Dave,
My observation also (from the outside). I've viewed every event except VIR and traveled to every accesible part of each track. Even after adjusting for other variables the F2000 package favors the Zetec except in a high speed "drivers" corner or terminal drafting and outbraking. It is especially evident in low speed corners,slow starts and traffic where momentum might be lost.

This is my opinion, right or worng.

I think that for next year we should allow the Pintos to have tha aluminum head, new pistons and connecting rods, and 8 pound flywheels.

Then we should re-run the Sumit Point test at say Sumit Point and Road Atlanta. Set the weights for the Pinto and Zetec the same and adjust the Zetec restrictor and map to better match the two engines. May be repeat the test at Fire Bird East and Thunder Hill or the long and short courses at Willow Springs.

Also get a chassis dyno to check the test cars. Open the test to equal numbers of Pinto and Zetec competitior. Open the test to as many competitors as want to participate as long as there are equal numbers of Zetec and Pinto cars.


Set the rules by say April 1st and then leave the class alone. Hands off for the rest of the year.

for the f2000 results run the tests on series tires only

Bob,

Assuming everyone is being forthright about their observations and experiences, which I believe we all are, I would say that the differences are simply due to the tires.

John

What I find interesting is the trap times at Mid Ohio of Pinto's and Zetec's coming out of the keyhole. John, could you post the results of the timing you did as well as the process for taking the times.

As for another test, I hope to have my zetec ready for the runoffs. Perhaps after the runoffs we could do another test at Summit now that there are several zetecs and pintos in the DC metro area.

John, In f2000 trim I believe it enough to leave one of the faster pintos in the garage and pay to rent a zetec.

Some people run rock hard 8's & 10's because they are cheaper
Some buy a 94/95 because its cheaper but less competative
Some haven't bought new penske's to replace their less effective dynamics
Some still have stock vd wings, not slick pennon ones

some still use Pinto's because they don't want to pay for a new engine...

Isn't that the unfair advantage the series is looking to promote?

Why are we trying to equalize it out?

Steve- I agree with your idea.

Would you be willing to spearhead the process of introducing the changes to SCCA. You are both a long time, respected member and a car constructor. It needs to be written in a form applicable for the GCR with part numbers, etc and the reasons for the change. There then need to be many letters to the CRB suporting the changes. This forum could be used to sort out the issues for and against such a rule change.

Thoughts?

Doug- yes...However, I think a lot of this discussion is centered at CLUB racing, rather than the Series.

I believe the future health of the FC class requires inovation, some changes, and yes, the ability to have an unfair advantage. I think there is an ongoing need to keep things current (my own opinion, not neccessarily the official position of the Series).

I thought philisophical pillar #1 of the series was that the rules needed to be in line with club racing?

Yes. What we do in the Series is integrally linked to club rules. Its more a question of who is leading at any given moment. I was only saying that the above discussion appears to be more directed at a rules change for Club racing (which we would then follow) rather than a unilateral rules change for the Series.

Then I don't think this conversation is centered around club racing if you are going to follow whatever club racing does anyway. Its about pro racing just as much as club racing.

A pumped up Pinto would require top teams to re-evaluate and most likely change back to the Pinto if it got a new head, new pistons, connecting rods, and an 8 pound flywheel.

As this entire thread is discussing equality and finite adjustments to further equalize the cars, would it not be prudent to look at why people are converting Pinto's to Zetac's?

If it is as it looks to me, a question of the reliability of the Zetac over the Pinto, plus a low end torque issue with the Pinto. Then, should not the first step be to improve the reliability of the Pinto with new pistons/rods and allow the 8 pound fly wheel in to improve low end torque on the Pinto? Would this not bring the Pinto more in line with the Zetac in terms of reducing rebuild costs and extending time between rebuilds on the Pinto? Although we will never run in "The Series", improvements such as these just might bring those semi retired Pintos back out on the track. In addition, club only FC's will enjoy a longer life engine. Can't hurt S2000 on track numbers either should they choose to accept the changes.

All things being equal at that point, it would be easy to remap the Zetac if the Pinto gains too much. That would probably not upset the Zetac guys too much.

ok...there has been a concerted effort by many people to equalize the powerplants in the class, both for Club and the Pro Series. Anything else would disenfranchize all but the best one, and that is something the Club was dead set against from the get-go with the Zetec. Its a given that any changes to the Pinto that altered performance would be countered with a map/restictor change in the Zetec to match. We would certainly do that at the Series level and I know Club would also.

Its a fine line we walk with the FC class (or any other) to keep it current and healthy without antiquating some or all of the equipment. Remember, it was done once with the stroke of a pen in 1986 when the class rule was rewritten specifically for the F2000 marque-immediately killing the competitiveness of all the existing super vee's. It is inevitable that in any 'formula' class that older equipment stands the risk of becoming uncompetitive as the class developes.