August Fastrack re: Fuel Injection

[Paul LeCain]

There is a proposal in the August Fastrack by the CRB to the Board of Directors to eliminate the current 25 lb weight penalty given to fuel-injected Formula Atlantics.

In practical terms, this means that the Swift 008, Swift 014, and Ralt RT-41s that are injected will get 25 lbs. lighter.

I wrote a disagreeing letter to the CRB. If you have a non-fuel-injected car, I suggest you do the same.

I can't imagine what the thinking is here. The proposal will make the cars that are winning over 95% of the races be even faster (lighter). The cars that are not fuel-injected will get no relief, so will be relatively disadvantaged.

If the argument is that these cars are too heavy, then I agree. The fix for that is to drop the minimum weights for everyone. We've been over that before on this board.

[Rick Ross]

I assume that the 25 pound weight penalty for fuel injection was imposed because the injected cars were thought to have a performance advantage over the carbed cars. If so, then this advantage would still exist today, and the carbed cars should also get a 25 pound weight reduction. I do not understand why the weight reduction would only apply to injected cars.

[KevinFirlein]

I saw that last month that it was being recommended for approval. You will also notice this month that Kevin Kleopfer has asked for the swift 16 to be put in and that the BoD has asked the ad hoc committee to sort it out.

Sure would be nice to know what they are planning before spending the 30k+ our car needs to be repaired post glen.

[Rennie Clayton]

I assume that the 25 pound weight penalty for fuel injection was imposed because the injected cars were thought to have a performance advantage over the carbed cars. If so, then this advantage would still exist today, and the carbed cars should also get a 25 pound weight reduction. I do not understand why the weight reduction would only apply to injected cars.

The penalty was originally 50lbs for fuel injection. It was reduced to 25lbs for the 2003 season - we were kind of upset by that because we'd converted from EFI to carbs over the winter to gain a weight advantage, only to have it yanked half away. That was the last year a Ralt or carbs saw the top step of the podium at the Runoffs - based on that, we should probably put the 50lb weight penalty for EFI right back in place instead of reducing it to zero!

Then again, how many serious carb'd efforts have there been in FA at the Runoffs other than David Wilcox in his DB4? Not being snarky, just posing the question.


Cheers,
Rennie

[Joe Woodward]

While on the subject of weight reduction, why do the sequential box cars carry a weight penalty over the "H" pattern cars. If you are good, you can shift an "H" pattern box just as quickly as a sequential. I have owned a Ralt RT-41 and a Swift 014 and each car can be shifted just as quick as the other.

I would vote for removing the weight penalty for sequential box cars before I would agree that the EFI penalty should be changed.

Joe

[Paul LeCain]

We are in the same boat as Rennie. When the original weight penalty for injection was 50 lbs., we switched everything over to carbs, only to have the CRB change it to 25 lbs. about a week later.

Posting on this board is fine, but you all need to write to the CRB crb@scca.com to have any effect on this. That may (probably) not work, either, but it's worth a shot.

[bill gillespie]

My two cents: The current EFI cars enjoy a greater advantage than the older EFI systems. I think a 50 lb penalty would be the way to go for real parity...not reducing to "0". I'm now trying to switch our Cosworth to EFI to stay competitive....major bucks.

My opinion on sequential is that it enables no-lift-shift, and that is a demonstatable advantage over h-pattern.....hence, keep the penalty.

I agree with Paul, reduce all weights appropriately....don't add weight to cars that were not designed for higher weights.

Regards,
Bill

[Stan Clayton]

Posting on this board is fine, but you all need to write to the CRB crb@scca.com to have any effect on this. That may (probably) not work, either, but it's worth a shot.

Correct, Paul...write the CRB with your inputs. Although after the FC intake manifold and the forced class consolidation issues earlier this year, I have to wonder how anyone in the club can still think the CRB and BoD don't read and listen to your emails...

Also, here are a few pointers about how the "process" works. From Sep through May there is generally enough time for proposed rule changes to first be floated in Fastrack on a "the CRB requests input from the members" basis before being published as proposed rule changes. From June to Aug, however, they are generally published as "recommended", there not being time for the added "input month" before they appear on the BoD's agenda for consideration. In either case, YOUR INPUT IS REQUESTED!

Feel free to post here, but writing or emailing the the CRB is the only "official" record, so be sure to send it there.

Stan

[bill gillespie]

Not sure what your post-glen woes are, but I know of a TERRIFIC deal on all RT41 bits. Send me a PM if I can be of help, or call:

Regards,
Bill
770-328-8184

[Rick Ross]

Paul and Stan are correct.....if you want your opinion to be heard then you must e-mail the Club Racing Board. Postings here will not get the job done. Here's the CRB address one more time:

crb@scca.com

AlthoughI understand the desire by some to lower overall FA minimum weights, I am opposed to this proposal as written. Unless the carbed cars also receive a 25 pound reduction, this proposal simply does not make sense to me. In fact, based on comments here it sounds as though it may actually be more appropriate to return to the original 50 pound weight difference. Hmm....perhaps I should make that proposal to the CRB?

Of course the problem with reducing all FA minimum weights by 25 pounds is that some of the carbed, non-sequential cars may then not be able to even make minimum weight. For example, my carbed, non-sequential DB4 is right at min weight with no ballast and just a gallon or two of fuel.

[P.W. LeCain]

I have written a letter to the CRB, as well. But, it is unfortunate that this should even have to be heard. This proposal makes no sense. The F.I. cars are already winning almost every race.

[bill gillespie]

Do you race at 1230, or 1255?

Regards,
bill

[Garey Guzman]

My email has been sent.

[Rick Ross]

Bill,

It is my undertanding that the GCR minimum weight for my car is 1230 pounds (DB4 with Toyota, carbs, and non-sequential gearbox). I am at this weight with me and approximately 2 gallons of fuel in the car, so I am not carrying any additional ballast at this time. I suppose that I could reduce the empty weight slighly with lighter wheels, bodywork, etc.

[Rennie Clayton]

It is my undertanding that the GCR minimum weight for my car is 1230 pounds (DB4 with Toyota, carbs, and non-sequential gearbox). I am at this weight with me and approximately 2 gallons of fuel in the car, so I am not carrying any additional ballast at this time. I suppose that I could reduce the empty weight slighly with lighter wheels, bodywork, etc.

Rick,

Are DB4's heavier than RT-41's? We're at 1255lbs per GCR, with 45lbs of ballast. If we got rid of the massively heavy nose and repaired sidepods, I think we could shed another 10lbs off the car and get down to 1200 with me and 1.5gal of fuel on board...


Cheers,
Rennie

[Paul LeCain]

Depends on the DB-4.

The stock rear wing weighed more on the DB-4 (aluminum vs Carbon on the RT-41).

Ours was 1230 with a little fuel and a 190lb. driver, a short steel skid plate up front, aluminum the rest of the way. With a 150 lb driver, I was just at the Pro limit of 1184, using lighter wings.

I think the tub weighed more than our RT-41 (aluminum lower/carbon upper).

[Rick Ross]

Rennie,

I weigh around 180 pounds, and my car is right at 1230 with me and around 2 gallons of fuel (my tub is aluminum/carbon composite). My car has a Reynard/Bahner rear wing, which is not carbon fiber but is probably lighter than the original stock DB4 wing. The only way I could acheive any noticeable weight reductions would be thru carbon wings and/or lighter wheels.......or perhaps thru a driver weight "adjustment". I think that for many carbed DB4's a 25 pound weight reduction would be of little practical value.

[Paul LeCain]

Just not to lose sight of the thread topic:

I mentioned overall weight reduction in the context of wondering what the CRB was thinking with this proposal.

I said : IF the reason is that these cars are too heavy, then a weight reduction across the board is the correct response.

I know we hashed out the weight thing a while back. I still favor a reduction, but the CRB got about equal responses in favor of and against my proposal; nothing happened.

The point to write the CRB about is that lowering the weight of the already-fastest cars, and no others, makes no sense.

[Rick Ross]

Good points, Paul. I have sent my e-mail to the CRB and BOD.

[Rick Ross]

Does anyone know if the BOD has taken any action on this item yet?

BTW, is any ballast normally required in a club-spec Swift 014? If not....then the proposed weight reduction will not assist these cars. There are other cars that may benefit, however.

[bill gillespie]

hey Rick....My alloy block Cosworth will get some weight off your missle, and Kevin still has the bits to put it in....lol

Bill

[Dave Gomberg]

Does anyone know if the BOD has taken any action on this item yet?

Rick:

The BoD has not yet seen this item yet because we are in the member comment period. At the next CRB meeting we will decide if the proposal will be sent to the BoD for approval or if it will be withdrawn.

Dave

[Joe Woodward]

Lets not fight about this issue. Reduce everyone's weight by 25#. Rick, you should be able to run at 1230 with an aluminum tub, carburators and a 4 speed. Paul, you should be able to run at 1255 with a carbon tub, 4 speed and carburators, and I should be able to run at 1280 with sequential, carbon tub and injection. I would be happy to give up the balast I now carry to get to 1305.

Joe

[Rennie Clayton]

Lets not fight about this issue. Reduce everyone's weight by 25#. Rick, you should be able to run at 1230 with an aluminum tub, carburators and a 4 speed. Paul, you should be able to run at 1255 with a carbon tub, 4 speed and carburators, and I should be able to run at 1280 with sequential, carbon tub and injection. I would be happy to give up the balast I now carry to get to 1305.

Joe

Your point is presumably well-intended, but... Rick and Paul already run at those weights - your scenario only gives yourself a weight break...


Cheers,
Rennie

[Joe Woodward]

Rennie:
You are absolutely correct. Rick can go to 1205, Paul to 1230 and I can go to 1280. I am good with that.

Joe

[Rick Ross]

Dave,

Thanks for the input regarding the status of this proposal with the CRB.

Hi Joe,

I am already at minimum weight (1230#) with no ballast, so a 25 pound weight reduction would be of absolutely no benefit to me. However, I do agree that an across the board FA weight reduction makes more sense than one which favors only the fuel injected cars. Reducing the weight of only the fuel injected cars seems illogical to me, and I suspect that there were other reasons for this current proposal.

BTW, how much ballast are you currently carrying in your 014? Do most 014's carry ballast?

[Rick Ross]

Rick:

The BoD has not yet seen this item yet because we are in the member comment period. At the next CRB meeting we will decide if the proposal will be sent to the BoD for approval or if it will be withdrawn.

Dave

Hi Dave,

Thanks so much for the info. The August Fastrac indicated that this item had already been submitted to the BOD for approval. Is this correct? After reading the Fastrac I assumed that the next step was a BOD vote, but if I understand you correctly the CRB may still decide to withdraw the proposal and not send it to the BOD.

BTW, what was the source of the original proposed rule change? Did it originate internally within the CRB, or from a specific member request?

[Stan Clayton]

BTW, what was the source of the original proposed rule change? Did it originate internally within the CRB, or from a specific member request?

Rick, the original request was submitted by a competitor (non CRB/FSRAC/BoD, etc). Stan

[bill gillespie]

I apologize for a little thread creep, but...........with the 016a proposal, and active discussion on weight adjustments, where do you see Atlantic heading on engines, gearboxes, etc?

If a restricted 2.3l is accepted on the 016a, would it be appropriate to consider more economical/ reliable alternatives to the current 1600cc megamotors? there are a bunch of 2-2.3l alternatives out there. The cost of continually tweaking all the Toyotas, or my lone Cosworth is considerable......In comparison, the 250hp Cosworth is off-the-shelf- and very reliable/cost effective.( Duratec)

Six-speed gearboxes seem to be the norm on new cars......eventually someone will build a new Atlantic chassis....maybe it's time to align FA and CSR rules to be more universal and attractive to both classes.......before yelling at me about update costs for 6-speed, or different engines, allowed vs required are two entirely different matters. Competition adjustments can be made to address performance differences.

IE: if the 016a is allowed, it will eventually be the dominant car, and instead of having to buy a 016a to keep up, I would rather keep my Ralt and update to a 2.3l Duratec, 2l BDG, Honda 2l, etc, with a Hewland JFR.

Flame on, but consider 2-5 years down the road....
Rant over,
Bill

[KevinFirlein]

I already sent my letter against the 016. If that car had been named 'Cart Lite' we wouldnt even be having the conversation. thanks to taking advantage of 30 years of FA name marketing its being considered.

3 years in and the CRB cant get the Fc engines straight but they are some how gonna make the 2.3L equal ? please

[bill gillespie]

Guys,

No heated comments???
Bill

[Rick Ross]

Well, I think that Kevin has a valid point. The 016 cars are larger, heavier, faster, and more powerful. They really don't have much in common with a club FA, and it is hard to imagine how they could be "equalized" with current 1600cc Atlantic cars. Attempting to integrate the 016 into the current FA class could get very messy.....

On the other hand, Bill's comments about the current club FA engines are spot on. The current crop of Toyotas and Cosworths will not last forever, and it would be nice to one day have an alternative engine which is cheaper to buy and to operate. I don't know if that's an achievable goal, but I like the idea.

[bill gillespie]

Rick, Kevin, Stan, et al:
Kevin may be right about equalization.....on paper it should be achievable, but............

You are correct, the 016 is bigger, heavier, and maybe a little faster.......I believe Bomarito in an 016 just broke Allmendinger's 014 Three Rivers track record by a half second.......the rest of the 016 cars were slower than Allmendinger's 014. That gap may widen at some tracks.

I've seen the inlet restrictor that Cosworth is testing for the 016 MZR engine, and I believe the target is around 260hp. At 1400+ ilbs, it will not beat a current top Atlantic car.

I have mixed feelings about the 016, but it is a current, safer car, with a robust gearbox and a long-lived engine in club spec.

The bigger issue to me, is whether this would open the door for other engines in FA to help reliability, cost, and availability.

Thoughts?
Bill

[Stan Clayton]

Bill, sorry I missed your earlier question. We are closing out Fastrack this morning, but I will make time to reply later today. Best regards, Stan

[Stan Clayton]

I apologize for a little thread creep, but...........with the 016a proposal, and active discussion on weight adjustments, where do you see Atlantic heading on engines, gearboxes, etc?

If a restricted 2.3l is accepted on the 016a, would it be appropriate to consider more economical/ reliable alternatives to the current 1600cc megamotors? there are a bunch of 2-2.3l alternatives out there. The cost of continually tweaking all the Toyotas, or my lone Cosworth is considerable......In comparison, the 250hp Cosworth is off-the-shelf- and very reliable/cost effective.( Duratec)

Six-speed gearboxes seem to be the norm on new cars......eventually someone will build a new Atlantic chassis....maybe it's time to align FA and CSR rules to be more universal and attractive to both classes.......before yelling at me about update costs for 6-speed, or different engines, allowed vs required are two entirely different matters. Competition adjustments can be made to address performance differences.

IE: if the 016a is allowed, it will eventually be the dominant car, and instead of having to buy a 016a to keep up, I would rather keep my Ralt and update to a 2.3l Duratec, 2l BDG, Honda 2l, etc, with a Hewland JFR.

Flame on, but consider 2-5 years down the road....
Rant over,
Bill

No flames from me, Bill, as I too am looking ahead 2-5 years. Before I get to that, though, I want to look backwards several decades as well as address a couple of potentially contentious issues.

From its reincarnation in the '70s replacing the recently-defunct original 5 liter FA class, the modern era's FA class philosophy was dominated by the need to have the 'look and feel' of an F1 car of the day, and was powered by a highly strung small displacement 4-cylinder engine in place of the ground pounding V-8s of prior years.

The flat-bottomed, shovel-nosed, aluminum monocoque Atlantics of the late 70's looked like F1 cars of the day, and were powered by a 1600cc Cosworth BDD. Same with the more modern looking RT-4 and DB4 of the '80s. Same with the Reynards and Ralts of the '90s, except for the Toyota power plant (itself a clone of the BDD). And same with the Swifts of recent years. The only significant exception from the early days being the VW-powered FA-SV cars of the early '80s.

At practically each step along the way, the cars got bigger, heavier and more robust. And faster. And they relegated preceding models to also-ran status. The Swift 016a continues that tradition in part, but breaks with the engine paradigm by going to a much larger displacement engine. It is the 016 that I want to address.

Before I do that, though, I want to address a comment I read above. The 016 is not a "Cart Lite" or an Indy Lites or a Formula 3000 car with a 4-banger in it. Rather, the 016 is the natural result of making the Atlatnic chassis safer, roomier and more reliable and robust. It is as far beyond the 014 as that car was beyond the Ralt RT-41 in those respects, and as far as the '41 was beyond the DB4. The 016 will not pass the F-3000/Lites crash tests, and was not designed for 400+ hp. It does have wider sidepods for greater protection, and greater span wings, but it also carries another ~100 lbs, so whether the chassis has any inherent advantage remains an open question.

The engine is really where the 016 departs from FA tradition. As originally specced, the 2.3 MZR put out a little over 300 hp, but the engines would not last the TBO contracted for, and the hp was subsequently dialed back by restricting max revs via the ECU. In its current configuration the engines put out about 285 hp max, and the cars are more than a match for the best Swift 014. Obviously, that hp cannot be brought into the class, so we (the CRB) are discussing with Cosworth options for how to further restrict the engine in the event it is approved. Cosworth have offered a sealed ECU set at a lower max RPM, but for ease of compliance checking, the CRB have asked them to test a restrictor plate as used on the FC-Zetec and the Panoz DP-02 CSR (same basic engine as the Swift 016), and we expect to see dyno sheets in the coming weeks.

This brings me to Bill's point:

The bigger issue to me, is whether this would open the door for other engines in FA to help reliability, cost, and availability.

Looking ahead to the health of the class in the future, I believe we need to permit an option for restricted larger displacement engines. A fresh Toyota makes about 250 hp, or about 155 hp/liter. An unretricted 2.3 MZR makes about 135 hp/l, and at 285 hp it's at about 125 hp/l and goes two or three times as long between overhauls as a Toyota. At 260 hp it is down to about 115 hp/l and might well go twice as far yet.

A prime question for me is do we chose an arbitrary increase in displacement, say to 2 liters, and use an inlet restrictor to cap hp, as is done in F-3, or do we continue to massage individual engines to fit the fomrula...or perhaps a combination of the two approaches. Personally, I would like to see unrestricted 1600cc engines, inlet restricted 2 liter engines, and selected others (e.g., Renesis 6-port rotary, 2.3 MZR). Build a 2 liter MZR/Honda/Toyota/Bimmer/etc. to a good standard, where it might make close to 300 hp unrestricted, then add a restrictor to cap it at 250 hp (doing essentially what Cosworth are doing with the 2.3 MZR) to dramatically improve its reliability and time between overhaul. It would run a bit heavier than the 1600s to offset its added torque, of course.

The devil is in the details and much work remains, but the idea is to get FA back to being an 'evergreen' formula that transcends time, rather than stuck on one particular engine solution.

Stan

[bill gillespie]

Stan,

Thanks for your perspective.......
Regards,
Bill

[KevinFirlein]

' run a bit heavier to offset the added torque' I love how increased torque is used kind of as a throw away line. Talking horsepower numbers may be what everyone likes but its rather like comparing johnson size, might make you stick out your chest a bit but if you cant use it for very long then whats the point ?

Adding weight would be an answer if it could magically disappear before the brakes were applied or the car had to take a corner. Of course it cant, so now the weight that was added to offset torque is slowing the car in other areas as well.

'ease of compliance testing' ? how would a sealed ECU be any different then what is already in place in FC ? You allow open mapping and power bands can be moved around to help offest the restrictor plate.

Of course the 016 can already be run as is in SCCA in FS, but that answer wouldnt make the 2 guys that bought Griffiths cars very happy.

[bill gillespie]

Hi Kevin,

Your position is pretty clear on what won't work........do you have any thoughts on what will? We have no new chassis available, and it seems the 4AGE is an expensive resource without a good parts stream...especially blocks.

I haven't owned Toyota's in quite some time, so I may be way off on my assesment.

Regards,
Bill Gillespie

[KevinFirlein]

My answer Bill is I am not sure. To be fair the costs rising on toyotas may be due to supply issues but its also be driven by the competitor base. The last couple of years have seen a couple of builders , and their drivers, really drive both cost and power levels up, and reliability down. Thats no ones fault but our own and a by product of people being willing to spend what it takes to win, within 'reason'. ( everyones definition of 'reason' is going to be different)

I have zero problem with making changes but not at the expense of current competitors. The class, as all formula classes, as always had new chassis showing up and pushing others to the side. If the 016 was built around the same engine and dimensions as the current cars and was plain and simply faster then so be it. But its not.

Right now , relatively speaking , FA is pretty strong. Fairly surprising given its one of the most expensive classes SCCA has to offer. However I dont really see everyone getting in line to spend another $100k or so for a new chassis plus the costs of support pieces. Will guys keep racing their current cars if faster options are dropped in on them ? Dont see too many RT-4's or DB4's around much anymore. Sort of answers that question.

What will happen in 5 years time ? I have no idea and neither does anyone else. And the dollar cost of getting it wrong is fairly high with this class.

[Rick Ross]

It seems to me that we are really talking about two seperate issues here, although they are of course clearly related.

One question is whether or not the Swift 016a should be allowed to race in the FA class. The 016 was not designed to the current FA formula, and "restricting" it so that it can compete with the current FA cars will not be easy. In general I do not think that this is a good idea......why change the formula just to allow a new car to come in and play? The owners of the 016's knew when purchasing the cars that they were not SCCA FA eligible. On the other hand, no one is currently building FA chassis, so in theory the class could eventually fade away unless a new car appears on the scene. For this reason alone it may be wise to at least consider allowing the 016 to compete, and this appears to be the path that the CRB is taking. Additional cars would be good for the class, and as of today the 016 is the only potential source of new cars.

The other issue worth consideration is the addition of altenative engine options to the formula. In my opinion, the current reliance upon the 4AG (and BDD) is not good for the long-term health of the class. It may not be a huge problem now, but one day it will be. Engine costs are the biggest barrier to entry into the class. I can only speak for myself, but I would love to replace my Toyota with a modern 250hp engine that would go 2 or 3 thousand miles between overhauls. With a different motor the operating costs in FA would be much closer to other classes such as CSR/DSR/FC, etc.

Of course, the devil is in the details here. Can the 016 be "equalized" with the 014's, 008's, Ralts, etc.? Can a modern 2.0L or 2.3L engine be restricted so that the Toyotas remain competitive? And as Kevin rightly pointed out.....how can any of these changes be accomplished without harming current FA competitors who have invested significant time and money into their current cars?