FC Zetec map change - effective 8/1

[Dave Gomberg]

In the August Fastrack (out today) the following appears in TB 06-08 (page 19)

FC
1. Section 17.1.6.B.4.e.10, p. 28, the required SCCA Club map has been changed for the Zetec powered FC cars. This updated map, available from the SCCA website: http://www.scca.com/Club/Index.asp?reference=techforms, is required effective 8/1/06.

Also:
2. Section 17.1.6.B.4. F-2000 SPECIFICATION, p. 32, correct item D. Exhaust height measured from the ground as follows: 20-60cm.

Dave

[DaveW]

Thanks, Dave!

[KevinFirlein]

ok I'll bite. What change was made to the current ( west coast ) map and what is that change intended to do ?

Kevin

[Rick Silver]

Kevin, the bottom end of the curve was significantly changed. Both timing and throttle response were changed to get the curves to overlay from about 4800 to 6000 RPM. From 6000 RPM up the Pinto has a few HP advantage. The mixture was changed on the top end to lean it out and make the Zetec more "peaky" like a pinto. The Zetec still carries a 50 lb weight penealty with a 1.275 resrictor. The current mapping is intended to make the Pinto and Zetec much closer in HP and torque below about 6000 RPM and more similar in character and power band above the 6000 range. The Zetec does not flatten out with this map but rather looks more like a Pinto peaking higher in RPM.

-Rick

[KevinFirlein]

thx for the reply rick

[R. Pare]

Since when did the exhaust height need "correcting"? It's has been 30 - 60 cm darned near forever. What brought this on?

[DaveW]

Since when did the exhaust height need "correcting"? It's has been 30 - 60 cm darned near forever. What brought this on?

I think a lot of cars' exhaust exits were lower than 30 cm. I saw several VD's that were illegal under the old rule. Mine was marginal after we went to the downswept exhaust system.

So, IMO, rather than force a lot of people to change their cars for no good reason, the rule was changed.

[R. Pare]

It's true that some cars are probably not legal and could use a rules change, however, that is not the point.

This change has been instituted as a "correction", not a rules change. If the rules were in fact instituted as 30-60cm from the beginning ( and I'll admit that on that score I am not positive - the oldest FCS I could find here is '98), and NOT the result of a misprint somewhere along the line, then this change has to be put up for input as a CHANGE in the rules, not a correction! This is wherein my questioning lays.

All that said, I really have no problem with the more generous dimensions.

[DaveW]

Richard, I see your point.

It was 30-60 for as long as I can remember...

[jim morgan]

dave,
Where are they measuring from FF regs have a reference I don,t see one for FC

[R. Pare]

It's in the diagram at the end of the FC section.

[DaveW]

It's in the diagram at the end of the FC section.

That's a really lousy diagram - it doesn't refer to where on the exhaust system this "height" is measured. Other parts of this diagram are screwed up also. Remember the "clarification" last year that said that "overall width" only applied at the rear, because "that's what the diagram shows". IMO, overall width is overall width, period. It's self explanatory, or it should have been.

[jim morgan]

that's my question is the measurement bottom of pipe top, or middle, makes a difference .tech at last years runoffs could or would not say. ff diagram has reference line fc does not

[DaveW]

that's my question is the measurement bottom of pipe top, or middle, makes a difference .tech at last years runoffs could or would not say. ff diagram has reference line fc does not

That was my point - it's NOT specified. Therefore I'd say, (and, of course, I'm not the tech guy doing the measurement, or the steward interpreting it) since it says "height," that means at the highest point of the tail pipe at the exit, since that's what height usually means. However, the way this diagram has been (mis)interpreted in the past, anything is possible.

[jim morgan]

Dave

Don't disagree with your logic but what if they want to measure minimum from bottom and maximum from top we had to modify because we could'nt get clarification and a dq over this type of issue is a classic runoffs disaster

[R. Pare]

It would be pretty hard to argue against the 60cm spec as being the max height to the top of the tube, and the 30cm spec as being the minimum height to the bottom of the tube - the specs define the 'box' it must stay in.

Then again, logic many times seems to have nothing to do with it!

I'm still awaiting an answer as to how this change is a "correction" instead of a rules change!

[DaveB]

The Zetec's didn't do to well at Road America, I guess they really need some help. 12 seconds off the pole might be a little much.

Dave

[DaveW]

Dave

Don't disagree with your logic but what if they want to measure minimum from bottom and maximum from top we had to modify because we could'nt get clarification and a dq over this type of issue is a classic runoffs disaster

Well, considering the lack of definition in the diagram, that's the safe interpretation, and you did the right thing. So, 20 cm (7.87 in) minimum to the bottom of the exit, and 60 cm (23.62 in) maximum to the top.

Of course, since the diagram says "dimensions shown at the rear apply only to the rear," how far from the "rear" does "the rear" extend? 1 mm, 1 inch, one foot, 1 yard, or what? Pretty poorly worded.

[Greg Mercurio]

"...the bottom end of the curve was significantly changed. Both timing and throttle response were changed to get the curves to overlay from about 4800 to 6000 RPM. From 6000 RPM up the Pinto has a few HP advantage. The mixture was changed on the top end to lean it out and make the Zetec more "peaky" like a pinto. The Zetec still carries a 50 lb weight penealty with a 1.275 resrictor. The current mapping is intended to make the Pinto and Zetec much closer in HP and torque below about 6000 RPM and more similar in character and power band above the 6000 range. The Zetec does not flatten out with this map but rather looks more like a Pinto peaking higher in RPM. "

-Rick

So, equivalency was achieved not in 3 years, but in less than 5 months. Wow. Thanks to all who voted to make this change.

Currently converting my Pinto FC to an FS car. FC loses another participant.

Unintended consequences alwys suck.

[Bob Wright]

Greg, why so cynical? I can say with some knowledge there are exactly 3 zetec FC cars in the country running SCCA races. None have won anything. In fact, if I understand correctly they didn't fare particularly well at RA last weekend compared to the Pinto. From personal experience that current SCCA map won't win anything by itself.

The zetec package is good, and will one day be competitive in club racing. The class is very good, why take yourself out of it? Why not stay in and help strengthen it?

[ChuckU2]

So, it appears that from now on every time that there is a map change to the Zetec we're going to have to listen to a bunch of nonsense about how there is an unfair rush to EQUALIZE the cars.

It sure didn't look like these two packages were even close to equal last weekend at Road America. Steve Thompson was about 12 seconds off the pace of the fastest Pinto car...and I don't think it was due to lack of driver skill either...as I watched him earlier this year glued to Niki's gear box at Blackhawk in the rain (when the ECU map didn't matter as much). That sounds like what I read in the proposal, the Zetec was at a definate disadvantage in 2006.

If I understand correctly, as we approach 2007, the map is to be adjusted at certain intervals to move us towards as equilibrium at some point in the future. However, so far here all I read is people crying "unfair" every time a map change is discussed.

Personally, I applaud anyone who is currently running a Zetec in FC at a known disadvantage in order to further the research for equality...how many of you would actually do that? Most of us are always looking for that extra advantage. I just can't justify the costs of conversion from "pro spec" to FC, when I can run in FA (also at a disadvantage) and not spend a dime in conversion costs...so once again, hats off to the people out there doing the miles needed to make this come together.

People are getting all worked up because the cars would be at best "EQUAL"...however, I doubt they are. The proof is on the track, not in the percieved effect of an ECU map. It's going to take time and testing to make this happen, so until all of the sudden the Zetecs are the only thing in the winner's circle can we try and keep open minds?

I'm confident one day my car (and most other current pro cars) will end up in FC (afterall they can't keep the current pro package forever)...FC gains another participant! We're back to equal now. The world is not ending. Beware of intended consequences.

I think it's all a bunch of politicing to make th folks at SCCA afraid to adjust the map for fear of complaints. What's the big fear of "EQUAL"?

[John LaRue]

From what I have seen the map does not equalize the power and even if it would there still exists the fifty pound penalty. If parity is not possible at this juncture there is absolutely no incentive to run and no reason for the engine to have been adopted in the first place. Without "on track" competition the truth will never be told. This approach will only encourage those cars to look for other venues such as Bob's series which hurts FC/SCCA instead of helping.

[Dave Gomberg]

Sigh!

I'm sure I'm spitting in the wind, but I'll try this one more time.

When the FC Zetec proposal was put out for member comment, we got a range of responses from "NO - NEVER!" to "Well, maybe, but no immediate parity", to "Yeah! - But make them equal out of the box". Guess what? There is no way to please everyone in that spectrum of responses. So, we did pretty much what the FC Zetec committee proposed: we planned for an (approximately) two year phase-in using adjustments to the restrictor size, the ECU map and the weight penalty.

No one has run the new map (first adjustment) yet, so you can't judge it by what happened at Road America. The new map will be in place at least through this year's Runoffs. We will then make another adjustment effective 11/01/06 to close the gap somewhat. We may make a mid-2007 adjustment. We will make what we expect to be a final adjustment effective 11/01/07. (Please notice, I said "expect". We are not ruling out adjustments after that if necessary to achieve performance that is as evenly matched as we are able.)

And, no, we aren't afraid to do this. And, no, we won't be bullied one way or the other on this.

Dave

[DaveW]

Dave,

Your understanding of what should happen is what I understand as well. That is how the rules were proposed when the option to let Zetec-engined cars into FC was posted for membership input.

[Stan Clayton]

Once again Greg Mercurio mistates the facts in hopes of stirring up the ants' nest.

Greg may wish it so, but the parity plan as presented to, and adopted by, the BoD was never "3 years", and continuing to say that it was will not make it so. As outlined by Dave Gomberg above, and by others elsewhere on this forum, the plan was always to achieve parity by the 2007 Runoffs, or slightly thereafter.

Futhermore, contrary to Greg's claim we have not compressed the schedule to "5 months". Stating it as such may be comforting to Greg, but the truth is that the recent adjustment takes a few foot-pounds of torque out of the midrange to make the Zetec a bit "lazy" in that RPM band, like the Pinto. In other words, we have turned the Zetec into more of a dog than it already was. But don't take my word for it. Call Quicksilver and ask them.

We will continue to monitor the performance of the Zetec and plan more refinements to its specifications, as outlined by Dave Gomberg above. In addition to further map tweaking, in the next year we anticipate a slight increase in restrictor size. The current 1.275" caps the engine several hp below what a good National Pinto can get, and that will be rectified at some point. We also will be taking 25 pounds off the weight of these cars, to bring them into compliance with SCCA's standard 25 lbs weight penalty for F.I. engines.

The ultimate objective is an engine package that emulates a state-of-the-art Pinto as closely as we can. Chassis limitations, set-up knowledge and driver skill will always determine race outcomes, but engine choice should not. In the meantime we will continue to source additional aftermarket parts to extend the viability of the Pinto, and we have no time table for phasing it out. As long as there is an FC class the Pinto will be fully competitive.

So Greg, convert your FC to FS if you wish, and have fun with the car in that class. But please don't try to blame your decision on the Zetec, 'cuz that dog won't hunt.

Stan Clayton
SCCA Club Racing Board

[Thomas Copeland]

Greg, I don't think there's anything sinister going on. One beef I had earlier this year was not that the engine map was changing but that it appeared to be happening without any notice given or any reasons why. Nor were we being given any kind of reports as to the progress or status of the program. After an explanation and a road map was posted I'm not too concerned anymore. I dunno, maybe if the information was more forthcoming people wouldn't feel blindsided every time they post a new engine map. Just a little info and some advance notice.

I will be running a Zetec in FC trim at the Infineon regional Sept 2-3. So you can see first hand how much of a disadvantage I'll be at. Even so, I'll still spank you good! You will show up this time won't you? But all kidding aside putting Zetec in FC is best for the class. I just wish it was more affordable so more racers could easily make the change over. Maybe if there were other options of Zetec available like that non-ECU one (that shall remain nameless in fear of another meltdown thread occuring). I can tell ya it was somewhat financially painful for me to make the changeover. Forget about my racing budget this year...I don't have one!

Even though the Zetec is still a good year to two years away from being equal with the Pinto, I for one don't mind driving at a disadvantage in the meantime if it means helping out the class as a whole (not meaning to over-glorify here).

I can also tell you that that (baring a disaster) at least one FC Zetec will be at the runoffs this year.


Also Greg....you can't quit this class until I do spank you. Your words remember?

[Matt M.]

SO.......

Would this be a bad moment to talk about allowing a sequential gearbox into FC??

Its time. 4-speed H went out with the VW Beetle


http://www.hewland.com/svga/productrange/jfr.htm

[anthonywill3]

"state-of-the-art Pinto" Isnt that an oxymoron? Sorry Stan, I couldnt resist..

As a new competitor in FC this year, I have been watching this thread (and other related to the zetec proposal) closely. I for one am all for more cars in the class. I think the zetec proposal was a great idea. I say the sooner it is "competitive", the better. After just getting a $5300 rebuild done (and I still need a new head $3000-$4000), I only wish there was a viable (read cost effective) conversion for my rf97, or else I would have done it.

[Charles Warner]

Would this be a bad moment to talk about allowing a sequential gearbox into FC??

Its time. 4-speed H went out with the VW Beetle

At a cost of 4300 pounds sterling, plus duties, plus shipping, plus adaptor, plus any other suspension changes required to adapt this box to current cars, plus the fact that it's a 5 speed . . . . . ?

Why is it needed? Shifting the H pattern is about the only skill set required to race these cars. Now you want to dumb down the shifting process. Sounds like F1000 with motorcycle power and transmission might be for you.

Change for change's sake is, IMO, a waste of energy and resources.

[Matt M.]

F1000 OR FA or FSCCA, FS or GT
Maybe thats where the dummies go......

I'm just thinking of new cars having a slightly updated appeal - to what I shall term - the next generation. I know FA went through it when the trickle down happened... But now it must be 75-80% of the field running sequentials. Kids coming up these days have no idea what an H pattern is - they want to pull a lever and go. FC/SCCA will not attract any "new blood" intrest without it. Would it be a bad thing to have the numbers of kids just passing through? The car would have appeal (with a zetec of course ) - just my opinion.........

[Greg Mercurio]

Stan: Thanks for reminding me that having an opinion deserves a spanking. Sorry I couldn't make Rick's post any more succinct, I did copy and paste it from his post. Overlay sounds dangerously similar to equivalent.

To make my point crystal clear, we changed a stable rules package for 3 cars? Hoping that we will have a net gain of how many cars over the next how many years? Thank you for sharing that number with us Bob. I will continue to race in FC until the new motor is done, then it's off to FS.

Art Smith keeps asking for a problem statment in the FF section of this board. LOL.

[Douglas Kniffin]

Charles...How man "amazing new kids" have you seen come into and through FC in the last 5 years? I'm guessing you can count with 3 fingers how many you've seen or heard about. The reason is the FC looks like a dinosaur to young aspiring drivers. They don't think it looks like, sounds like, or works like the cars they want to drive. Now..all of us old dinasaurs in the class have the wisdom and experience to know that they are phenominal cars that are amazing to drive and would train anyone well for future success. None the less, without the sequential gearbox, and dare I say a carbon fibre chasis, the class is doomed to become part of history which just may be the natural progression of things. As far as I can see FA is the only class that has survived over time and the current FA doesn't look anything like the original FA's. The class grew, changed, and evolved with the times. I take it back...FV exists but no one cares about them.

[Charles Warner]

Doug,

I understand these points. I also think these new kids are not going to be the consistent and Club supporting members and racers we all hope to attract. These kids see the Club (if at all) as a very temporary venue to get noticed. I do not feel we need to make SCCA racing all things to all people. If these kids want a carbon fiber sequential shifting anti-lock brake pseudo race car then let them go find one elsewhere. If they can afford FBMW then they won't look twice at us anyway. IMO these are not the folks we need to attract. We need to attract the same types of racers that you and I were at one time.

And, if any of these younguns can't shift a non-synchro H pattern box without shift-without-lift then let 'em learn or play somewhere else. Also, if they are more concerned with how they look than racing I don't think we want them anyway.

I really think this whole subject leads to a greater discussion of kids wanting immediate gratification and society (parents) doesn't teach them about taking their time to develop. But that's a topic for another time and place.

[Douglas Kniffin]

Those kids who are the future racing stars are not the clubs future but the wannabees who wash out and get real jobs, will turn 25 and 30, and come back to play like the rest of us but their tastes won't change. Same goes for the ones who's dad's wouldn't fork over the $300k, when they have their own cash and want to go racing they'll still have the same interests in a car. When the day comes that they can go racing, they aren't going to look for an h pattern, tube frame, pinto powered race car. If you want to propetuate the class as strong as it has been and move forward, not stay frozen in the early 90's, it has to evolve or it will die like everything that doesn't move forward does.

[jgaither]

Sports 2000 in the UK is enjoying a nice revival these days thanks to a lot of hard work by a few dedicated people like Colin Feyeraband. One of the smartest things they did is to create a new set of classes within S2> Historic is for the older cars ('82 and older,I think), S2 for the bulk of cars, and the new class which is modernized but still very much an S2. These new cars have the 2.0 Duratec motor and a sequential 5 speed box. I think the brakes are slightly better and there's a small wing allowed on the back. The growing popularity of the Duratec car has meant that the older Pinto cars have new owners and are out in ever bigger numbers as are the older H cars. Now there are several manufacturers building new S2 chassis for the first time in years if ever. The S2 community here has soundly rejected this thinking so far. Too bad, I say. The class will continue to decline in SCCA and more cars will exit to vintage and the UK until there's a reason for racers to want to buy new cars. Old engines and gearboxes won't make that happen - in my opinion. I respect Charlie Warner's opinions and knowledge on these subjects greatly, but I differ along these lines.

FC and FF are in the same boat.

JG
(I've owned S2, FC, and now CFF).

[Lee Racing 8]

Matt, I know what an H-pattern is. I'm a teenager! I KNOW EVERYTHING!!






just kidding boys and girls, or am I.....