Pinto / Zetec Parity 09

[rickb99]

So I can send my Pinto out to be re-done, WHEN?

Peter,

Stan said the BOD review and vote is in early December and the results will be announced shortly thereafter.

[jonbaytos]

Seems like a fence to sit on that will get very full if not more care is taken to protect the majority.
Somebody pretty smart put the Zetec in Atlantic for a reason.

[DaveW]

Somebody pretty smart put the Zetec in Atlantic for a reason.

The main reason at that time, IIRC, was that the Pro cars' wings, wheel, and engine HP (~170 HP - no restrictor and different mapping from what is proposed now) were quite different from the equivalency proposal currently being talked about. The pro cars at that time would not fit any place other than FA.

Seems like a fence to sit on that will get very full if not more care is taken to protect the majority.

The current proposal is trying to do just that - protect the majority, while making it fair for all 3 engines (iron pinto, al pinto, zetec) to compete. Remember, back in the early times of the original pro series with Zetecs, the aluminum head did not exist, and club FC was strong. This is a different scenario now, so a different solution is required.

[Rick Silver]

Several people with extensive knowledge on the FC class have contributed to this proposal. To list a few who have directly contributed time and ideas, John LaRue, a Zetec owner, myself a pinto owner, Joe Stimola long time FC supporter, Bob Wright and the pro series, Sandy and Eric at Quicksilver RacEngines contributed dyno time, advice and money, several members of the FSRAC and comp board with years of open wheel race experience, numerous conversations, phone calls and solicited input from national champions and vested racers such as Chas Shaffer, Brian Tomasi, Chris Fahan, and lots others whose input was solicited directly or indirectly and listened to, to arrive at a fair compromise.

With the Zetec allowed in FC with a promise of equality over time and the aluminum head now allowed, we have to come up with an equality formula and this seems to be the only fair solution. There are now several active SCCA racers with Zetecs and a bunch more in the waiting from the pro series who I believe will participate over time. The club/pro series cross over has historically been fundamental to the success of the FC class and this proposal is, I believe, supported by both pro series.

As far as fairness goes, I believe that the current aluminum head with its 25 lb weight penalty, lower center of mass and greater HP has the performance advantage. The Zetec is chosen in the pro series because of longevity and they use a different map that gives the Zetec a clear HP advantage relative to the SCCA club map. The current proposal protects the majority iron head pinto owners with the reduced weight flywheel and the new cam. I am absolutely convinced that this is a fair solution that protects the iron head pinto owners and gives them a totally competitive engine package at a fraction of the costs of an aluminum head or Zetec conversion.

There is a legitimate argument as to why the majority pinto owners should have to pay anything to remain competitive. But I believe that an upgrade which can be done for as little as $400.00 is a reasonable price to give the class stability and long term direction for growth. $400.00 in the scheme of racing costs for all but the most austere budgets is a reasonable cost for an upgrade that enables a front running engine package. And for those budgets that are unable to absorb 400.00, it is not required and I find it hard to believe that anyone runs a nationally competitive or strong regional package that is unable to absorb this one-time cost. This is the first sanctioned update to the iron head pinto package that will be essential to be competitive nationally. This is a small cost in comparison to any of the historical pro series mandated updates or club developments such as drilled rotors, REM polish, ceramic bearings, Al diff, ICP calipers and this goes on…

[jonbaytos]

Sorry DaveW,I just don't see anyone running down from the hills pronouncing that parity has been acheived, ever. The perception of the differences will always be an argument. If for nothing else it will only fit a handful of chassis,these being of the more modern origin.
The Zetec was introduced to the Pro Series in 2000 with the sole intention of being different. That was the agenda,it was put into FA so it would not disrupt anything.
Does'nt it seem that a lot less are having a say in the matter? two things possible, they don't care,or are moving on,or alittle of both.
One things for sure there are'nt any 18 year olds chiming in.

[Dave Gomberg]

Jon:

Dave W. and Rick have tried to answer your questions in a civil fashion. I am going to try to say this in the nicest way I can. At this time, I don't think you have any stake in the decision to adopt the proposed package. Of course, you are entitled to your opinions, but it would be nice if you would quit offering up irrelevant distractions to the issue at hand. Let the current stakeholders have their say.

Dave

[jonbaytos]

Sorry Rick I feel it misleading to claim a 400.00 price tag. For some it could cost 400.00 to remove the engine and reinstall it. Last I remember it cost 500.00 just to dyno an engine,and one would have to assume that it would indeed need this.Then there is the parts,freight to and from etc .
Besides you give the Pinto 3 HP and 10 pounds ,one seems to cancel the other so it is a complete waste of cash and work.
One also has to consider that this like many other things is an unknown. What if for instance the chosen cam turns out like the piston of of 2000,or the Rod of 98 or the alloy head? You guys could park a lot of people in a short time. I fail to see why the status quo should spend a penny when what they have is fine.
There from what I have been told no consistent #'s for the alloy head so how can this even be part of the equation.
Since it is at the begining of it's life would it not be safe to assume that it still has power left to find,if so what happens then?

Since there is no evidence that there is not parity at the moment other than some get spanked by Nikki C it seems that a change of any exspense is premature at best.
I feel it fair to say that Nikki is going to win against these people in any event. Brian T has a very good program and knows what he is doing and he is beaten by Nikki C.
It may be unfair to use Nikki as the yardstick as I believe many are doing by the tone of the comments here. What if he races winged sprinters in 2009?
Also you say that the Pro Map serves up more power than the Club. This is not the case right? I was told it has been implemented to richen the engine only at the top,and improve starting.
If the Zetec is disadvantaged as you say why not just change it?

[jonbaytos]

Dave G thanks for the advice, I don't know you,so therefore it would be fair to say that you don't know me.
In this case it would be difficult for you to determine what I have a stake in.
I have a lot of respect for Dave W and also Rick. This does not mean that I can not ask some simple questions that I believe very relevent.
If you have a problem with my questions or comments,I would simply suggest you not read them. Sorry but I don't think it unreasonable to ask,maybe it may change my mind if there were some info that supports a change that I'm not aware of.
Do you compete in FC?

[DaveW]

Sorry DaveW,I just don't see anyone running down from the hills pronouncing that parity has been acheived, ever. The perception of the differences will always be an argument. If for nothing else it will only fit a handful of chassis,these being of the more modern origin.

No argument there. Equivalency between different engine/chassis types has, and will always be difficult. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to do the best we can.

The Zetec was introduced to the Pro Series in 2000 with the sole intention of being different. That was the agenda,it was put into FA so it would not disrupt anything.

Agreed. That, in different words, is basically what I said...

Does'nt it seem that a lot less are having a say in the matter? ...

This is always the case - there is always a silent majority, for whatever reasons.

Let's hope it works out for the best. I am certainly hoping that - I guess I am an optimist.

[Rick Silver]

Jon, I will try to answer your questions in order but many of these points have been made in more detail in previous posts. As I have said in my previous posts, “for as little as $400.00”. Although I may be incorrect, I do not believe anyone needs to pull an engine to change a cam. Either the cam can be slid in the rear of the head in most cars or simply removing the head in others, install the cam and reset the clearances. Although the actual specific cam profile will be published, essentially lift was added to the intake lobes. This should have little to no effect on the exhaust and since we are only talking a matter of several thousandths of an inch increase in lift. I would also not expect measurable gains from dyno work, except perhaps a jetting change and similar to fuels, we would be told to run a different size main jet.

3 HP does not cancel 10 lbs. I and many others I have spoken to agree that they would take 3 HP over 30 lbs any time in an FC. In a separate discussion we can argue the complexities of HP vs weight and their effects on performance.

Although there is a strong desire on the comp board and BoD to set a stable course with minimal changes in the future, if there are unforeseen errors these can be dealt with. The idea is to have a stable set of rules for the current allowed configurations for the next several years.

One also has to recognize that we have what we have and that the aluminum head came in the middle of the Zetec /Pinto equilibration. The Zetec and aluminum head are here to stay. We made a commitment to equalize the Zetec and without any question in my mind, the best long term equilibration formula would leave them at the same weight, rotating mass, and HP curves. As I said before, restricting the aluminum head, due to various engine builder input, is a not an option. So the aluminum head currently has an advantage in HP and lower center of mass.

I have received input from several national drivers that with the club map the Zetec is down on the top end and others complain about the Zetec bottom end advantage and the bulk of both groups complaining that the aluminum head has the advantage. Myself and most of those involved in the process have agreed to not use Nikki C as the benchmark but rather top national efforts other than his.

The pro map has about the same peak power as the club map, but the richening broadened the peak power range adding a couple of HP or more to the higher usable RPM range.

Jon, in the end, those with a vested interest in the class need to decide if we are going to move forward with a solution that leaves all three legal configurations as close to equal as possible or continue arguing or fending off those stirring the kettle for the next few years, while chasing off potential racers and disenfranchising existing class members. This proposal puts all three configurations way closer in their performance curves and is a sound step towards getting back to close, fair wheel to wheel racing.

[jonbaytos]

Good morning Rick, thanks,I will send my letter. JB

[enjoythetrack]

Wow, i truly feel for the Pinto guys, they MUST keep their engines VERY fresh to be competitive with the now lighter Zetec. The 'old' (2008 rules) heavier Zetec guys seems to launch off the corners better than a fresh Pinto (from my albeit VERY limited experience).

Also, whatever possible braking advantage the lighter Pinto had versus the heavier Zetec is now gone.

Then again... now have no dog in the fight, so best i STFU.

Have a great 2009 everyone.

[DaveW]

Wow, i truly feel for the Pinto guys, they MUST keep their engines VERY fresh to be competitive with the now lighter Zetec. The 'old' (2008 rules) heavier Zetec guys seems to launch off the corners better than a fresh Pinto (from my albeit VERY limited experience).

Also, whatever possible braking advantage the lighter Pinto had versus the heavier Zetec is now gone.

Then again... now have no dog in the fight, so best i STFU.

Have a great 2009 everyone.

Remember, the previous club/pro HP curve had a huge bottom end advantage. That has been mostly eliminated with the proposed mapping. The relevant HP curves are attached again for reference.

[enjoythetrack]

Remember, the previous club/pro HP curve had a huge bottom end advantage. That has been mostly eliminated with the proposed mapping. The relevant HP curves are attached again for reference.

Fair enough, now about the ADDED weight to the Pinto and lower weight for the Zetec...

(Talking to myself) STEVE, steve, STFU!!!!!!

i'll watch the below video a few times... all will be fine. All will be fine. All WILL be fine.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABWyXKT5qt4

[dc]

After reading this whole thread, it seems as though many people want to use a calculator to add 2 + 3. The suggestions and proposals all sound awfully complicated and unnecessary to me, but what do I know. It also looks like a lot of people are tired of getting their ass kicked by Niki, but he did that to you when you were driving Pintos, too.

You have two power options for club racing—one new and computer controlled that lives a long time and is cheaper to operate, and one old that is long in the tooth, getting tougher to find parts for and requires costly maintenance more often. The mass of the class participants still use the old one while the overall numbers dwindle as the top 15% of the class move to the new engine and other sanctioning bodies.

The object is to create a fair and level playing field for all playing. No more, no less.

• Make all cars the same weight (who cares what it is).
• Dyno the BEST, loaded aluminum head Pintos from the top 3 cars in the country. Average the results.
• Baseline map the Zetec computer profile to match the tested Pinto average as close as possible.
• Go and race

There will be an advantage to some motors on some tracks, and others elsewhere. Stop bickering about the minutia of which engine has a lower airscoop wind drag or the timing advance on the motor you aren't using.

[Mark H]

Thank You Jon!
I am one of the maj. drivers with a RF95 that will have to spend more money to add power to my engine and then add weight to slow it back down!!! OK that is stupid.

It isen't the mid '90 Van Diemen drivers who are complaining for this change, we knew that we weren't gonna win the RO's when we bought these cars.

In fact I'll say it.

This is put out there to slow down ONE driver who is 3 for 4 @ the RO's and some people are scared he will lap the field at his home track next Sept.

Because it sure ain't me in my 95 there worried about.....or the $$ Ill have to spend and find a place to add more lead on top of the 35# already in there??

[DaveW]

...This is put out there to slow down ONE driver who is 3 for 4 @ the RO's and some people are scared he will lap the field at his home track next Sept....

Mark, IMO, you are really off on a tangent:

1. IMO, Niki has something special. Whether it is driver, engine, attention to detail, or
a combination of all of these, it doesn't really matter. He will probably still kick butt
with the proposed rules.
2. The other drivers near the pointy end of the grid really, IMO, just want a few things:
a. To be able to compete on an more or less equal basis with the other cars in the
FC class.
b. To be able to race in groups with sports racers and FM's without being faster in lap
times and being blocked/crashed-into in the corners because the FM's and sports-
racers are much faster on the straights
c. To have FC car counts come back up

#2 a-c are the reasons this proposal exists. One heck of a lot of work by many people has gone into this to try to make it as fair as possible for all FC competitors, while giving the Zetec cars a place to race. Blowing all this off with a statement such as you made is, IMO, ill-considered.

[RacerDave51]

DaveW

From the attachment it looks like the Pinto Iron head Eng w/ stock cam needs to stay at 1190 (or less). ...a serious HP deficit for us with the current engine config... Time to spend mo-money... --not really.

[DaveW]

DaveW

From the attachment it looks like the Pinto Iron head Eng w/ stock cam needs to stay at 1190 (or less). ...a serious HP deficit for us with the current engine config... Time to spend mo-money... --not really.

That was apparently not a great iron head on that pinto engine. My last iron pinto was at least 4 HP better than that on Sandy's dyno. I think the relevant thing to consider is the relative improvement shown with the proposed cam. The aluminum head is supposed to be ~3 HP better than a good iron one on the same engine, with the same cam. So a 3 HP improvement due to the cam in an iron pinto should make it about equal to an aluminum head pinto without the proposed cam. And almost everyone agrees that the aluminum head on a pinto will probably still be a bit higher HP than the Zetec.

[Purple Frog]

• Dyno the BEST, loaded aluminum head Pintos from the top 3 cars in the country. Average the results.
• Baseline map the Zetec computer profile to match the tested Pinto average as close as possible.
• Go and race

Doug,
If your idea were the plan, then every iron pinto would be at a big disadvantage. Silver's plan is better because it strives for fairness for all three engine combinations.

Mark, You could send in a opinion to the CRB to keep the weight at 1190. No one is stopping you. And, you don't have to make any engine change under this proposal. Or, you can do it when you want to later. Damn, Mark, you make a living as an auto mechanic. These changes would be really easy for you.

Budrow, love you man, but the clock ain't going back ten years. Are you going to be in the FC game with anything next year? Or are you just trying to keep us all straight?

Now to really stir things up...

I wish we had a voting system for these Fastrack proposals. You know, democracy. The way it would work if I was king: You would get one vote for every race you finished during the last 12 months in the class the rule effects. Then, the wannabes, garage queen owners, spectators, fab shops, and rail sitters, would have less say than those actively racing in the class. But, alas, I'm not king, and that is a good thing.

[John LaRue]

I wish we had a voting system for these Fastrack proposals. You know, democracy. The way it would work if I was king: You would get one vote for every race you finished during the last 12 months in the class the rule effects. Then, the wannabes, garage queen owners, spectators, fab shops, and rail sitters, would have less say than those actively racing in the class. But, alas, I'm not king, and that is a good thing.

AMEN

JOHN

[FC63F]

Frog - for the most part over the years - i thought you had good common sense. On this deal - we are being seduced by the dark side - we are bending and or twisting the rules to fit a few cars at the expense of the many.

1. Few of the zetec cars will ever show up at the nationals - its a different experience than f2000 pro series

2. Seems out of balance to me to make the MANY cough up $500-$1000 for the few who will cought up nothing...Maybe they have to put $500 in a hat to make everyone feel a little pain which we spread out among those who show - logistics will never work but there should be some equity here

3. Do we really know what the impact on the pinto's are with the changes - are they helpful or harmful - history is replete with changes that produce unforcasted results. I hope we are not in that box

4. The weight thing - where did that come from?? looks to me to be helpful for the Zetecs - I can get to 1195 at zero fuel and with a lighter flywheel - who knows

All in all - I know that this will pass...I have heard through our BOD rep that most if not all the responses are for the proposal and probably from the 30 or so zetecs out there. I have no experience that suggests the zetecs are currently disadvanted. Oh, lat year i ran eight race weeks ends with four in GLC and four at Waterford. So do i get eight votes??? I have sent my note

David Keep
Reynard 90SF

[DaveW]

Frog - for the most part over the years - i thought you had good common sense. On this deal - we are being seduced by the dark side - we are bending and or twisting the rules to fit a few cars at the expense of the many.

One of the reasons this is needed is the existance of the aluminum head, which would have put EVERYONE else at a disadvantage without this proposed rule change.

1. Few of the zetec cars will ever show up at the nationals - its a different experience than f2000 pro series

I will be doing nationals this year - my car is finally going to be done. And with the proposed rules, a few more Zetecs will also.

2. Seems out of balance to me to make the MANY cough up $500-$1000 for the few who will cought up nothing...Maybe they have to put $500 in a hat to make everyone feel a little pain which we spread out among those who show - logistics will never work but there should be some equity here

Again, consider the effect of the aluminum head - everyone was already disadvantaged compared to that, and the cam change would have been necessary even w/o the presence of the Zetec.

3. Do we really know what the impact on the pinto's are with the changes - are they helpful or harmful - history is replete with changes that produce unforcasted results. I hope we are not in that box

Obviously, time will tell. But, IMO, neither of these changes is great enough to seriously affect reliability.

4. The weight thing - where did that come from?? looks to me to be helpful for the Zetecs - I can get to 1195 at zero fuel and with a lighter flywheel - who knows

Remember that with the present club map, the Zetec has a huge lower RPM power advantage. That will be mostly gone with the new mapping, so, along with that, to keep everything at least sort of equal, the weights will all be the same, whether 1200 or 1190.

[John Robinson II]

[quote=Mark H;194047]
In fact I'll say it.

This is put out there to slow down ONE driver who is 3 for 4 @ the RO's and some people are scared he will lap the field at his home track next Sept.

Mark,
You are really off base with this comment. I talked to a few people who have teched Nikki's car at the runoffs several times and the attention to detail is beyond compare. All the body work joints are perfect, the bottom is slicker then the top, every nut and bolt is just long enough, etc. Steve Knapp even admits that his motor is very special, but that is not to say that another one cant be built that is just as special. Oh yeah, the most telling thing...he was the only one who came in very close to min weight. And best of all, 2 years ago there was a 17 year old car that was all Nikki could handle, and if the wing had not been knocked off...

Based on your reasonong, it can be proclaimed that in FF DB-6s will be disallowed, they have won 4 of the last 5 runoffs. I know this is off topic, but just as far fetched.

John

[Purple Frog]

LaRue, I'm assuming you said "amen" to the fact that I am not King.

David Keep, Maybe you should be King. I love your idea. We get the zetec drivers to all chip in $500, and then we split it up amoung the active pinto drivers. The way I see it, you own 8 shares in the 'buyout'. I only own 4 shares this year.

Seriously, i do believe Topeka was an aberation. We have to deal with Road America now. Folks are willing to work to get to Road America for the Runoffs. But only if there is equality of sorts to make it a fair deal. I think if this change passes you'll see a bunch of zetecs at the Runoffs. If it doesn't pass, national participation will continue to drop.

You all know i'm sort of attached to the F2000 Championship Series. honestly if I was trying to help the Series short term, I'd be lobbying against the changes. Then in the short term, more disgrunted drivers would jump into the Series.

BUT, in the big picture... what's good for SCCA's FC is also good for the Series. If there are good rules, yes there will be crossover. Probably all season long. Some guys will dabble in both. But, we will also get back to pro cars moving down to the Club at the end of the season as the pro teams buy new cars for the next season. A healthier class also promotes a chance for new development, and maybe a market for new cars. Builders may pay attention. A strong club program is not going to hurt the Series, probably it will make it stronger. It will have more pizazz because the rising tide lifts all boats. Club and Pro don't really compete unless there is a small number of quality cars. The pro series offer intense racing on each of their weekends, with large fields of one class only, and lots and lots of track time. You are not going to get that at the club level, even in National level racing. The pro Series has been likened to running six or seven Runoffs a year. On the other hand, SCCA Club Racing has the cachet of crowning a amateur national champion (a big deal because so far no other club has reached that pinacle). Yes, someone could win both in the same year. Unlikely, but possible. If one does it, we will be talking about it for years.

[Art Smith]

while off topic, I for one am glad we don't have a King or a House of Lords!! it's a membership Club and anything other than "one member one vote" hurts my head. there are many ways to participate other than driving: car owner; tech official, supplier; consultant; ......... to name but a few. while democracy is a challenge at times, it's better in my view than any other game in town.

imagine the insanity that would result from attempting to divide up a single driver's / car's vote!! I had a 2-liter Pinto (cast iron head engine) at this year's RunOffs that ran as high as fifth before being hit; what fraction of a vote would that get me in the brave new world that some envision??

Art
artesmith@earthlink.net

[sarrcford]

We would not be having this argument if it were not for the aluminum head.
We were told that there would be no advantage, no additional porting, blah, blah, blah.
Chas addressed this nicely on page 2. Next thing you know, " The aluminum head is here and it's here to stay" "The engine builder's can't find a way to reduce the horsepower".
Explain why adding weight to the current iron head cars works, but not to the aluminum head cars?
Figure out a cost effective way or outlaw the aluminum head.
Consider who runs what and play the percentages.
There is no reason why the long existing iron head engine running community, in the hundreds, should have to change for the sake of the few people having the aluminum head.

Rob Poma

[enjoythetrack]

We would not be having this argument if it were not for the aluminum head.

Fine, so make them add weight. Call it 1225 lbs total min. If they want to spend the $$$ on the alum head, that is their 'penalty' while everyone else need do nothing.

Problem solved, you can all now go home happy.

That Was Easy

PS: Seems to me SOMEONE is just itching for an excuse to make MAJOR changes to the rules. Now who could THAT be??? Follow the money... who benefits from these changes?

[JHandley]

As a curiosity,
What would be wrong with leaving the CFC group alone,
and allow those in the FC group to have their rules expanded for the sake of competition.
I realize that the GCR does not specifically seperate the FC group as such, however
I chose an older race car to allow me to race at a reasonable budget level.
Im happy with my reynard as I'm sure many other CFC drivers may wellbe. I will never compete at the national level but it seems that when a proposed weight increase may be placed in force then myself and many others will need to make the required changes to keep somewhat of a pace, attempting to make up for said weight increase.
I really dont care if a Zetec FC or an uprated Pinto FC spanks me on the course, I want to be competetive with other CFC's. I would be happy with that.
Just my 2 cents.
I know progress happens.

[Dave Gomberg]

Jeff:

CFC is a regional class not recognized in the GCR. That means the regions or divisions which recognize CFC set their own rules. They could set the weight wherever they wish. If you and other CFC competitors approach the organization that makes your local CFC rules, it is likely you can get the weight set where you want it.

Dave

[S Lathrop]

I think that this rules proposal is the best that can be done with the current situation. And represents a very good effort to resolve problems that have been allowed into FC.

The guys at Quicksilver have done a excellent job balancing the various packages.

I made the argument earlier that this engine package did not favor the Zetecs especially at Elkhart. But I think the Zetec will be a competitive package where as currently it is not.

The decision to include Zetec cars in FC was made years ago with the promise that after a time there would be parity. We are finally getting to that goal of parity.

I think that the ultimate power package will still be the iron head and the new cam. Nicky gets a nice power increase to deal with all the other engine packages that get a weight reduction. The only difference I see for Nicky is that he will be able to read the car numbers on the cars pursuing him easier.

The real gripe for the Pinto guys is that they will have to run their engines closer to 7000 to have a power advantage over the Zetec. The Zetec guys will have to stop loafing in the corners because their bottom end power will no longer assure that they get a significant head start down the straights. The last few hundred feet of the Elkhart straights will be Pinto country.

[RussMcB]

Seems odd (and wrong) that they didn't use the current iron head Pinto 1190lb. car as the baseline for parity.

[Mark H]

Well yes John Yall are one of the few that could race with a chance to win every year.
And yes the champs wins come from the whole package, so the weight won't hurt him.

I'm dumd but all I keep thinking, over and over is: speed up all the Iron Pintos with one rule change.........Then slow it back down with another??? The few I've talked with get my point?

If its not to slow down the champ then it MUST be another push by the engine builders (ala Alm. head) to drum up buss.?? Nothing else adds up.

The change is ill-considered.

Theres more to it than shave down your current flywheel....to thin...you must BUY one. OR just slaping a cam in there....at least the head must be re-setup = $$.
Then the lead if I use anymore lead I could drive through 3 mi island.

Bottom line is I MUST up grade and even if I don't I must add lead!

[FC63F]

Jeff,

You do raise an issue for those of us who are running GLC. That issue is weather to follow the new engine rule or stay with the old rules. In GLC, all cars 1990 and older qualify for CFC with the technology associated with 1990. There are some grey areas with the rules such as wing technology, diffusers etc that we allow some improvement. However, if the Objective for Great Lakes Challenge is to maximise the number of regional cars racing FC cars - then we do have some problems we will have to deal with. The first is that we are trying to get racers who have cars sitting in a garage collecting dust to come out to race. If we (GLC) adopt the new rule - will the impact be to not come out because they are down on power compared to the rest of the field? That is likely to make it harder to recruit. This is more likely to be a near term problem if we adopt and act on the new rules. On the other hand - in the long term if we do not adopt the new rules - will that weigh against participation because someone we don't know will show up at a race (Good) with an updated Reynard with the uprated engine - what do we do in that case - we certainly don't want to turn them away but it appears there will be a clear advantage to the new car and the net will be to force us to upgrade. A rather challenging set of issues. We would be much better if all the engine options were dumbed down to the current pinto but that has not happened. This new rule was not written with regional drivers in mind - this was written for the National/Pro guys. I do find it ironic that the GLC car counts are easily 2x the national counts.

One of the things we will have to work out at our GLC meetings this year is a reasonable way to deal with this new rule should it be adopted which appears to be the case. So far, I know of only one Pinto/Aluminium driver and that was Paul Knight and given all the suspension and aero mods - I cannot tell you what percent of his performance last year is associated with the aluminium head.

Regards,

David

[DaveW]

Well yes John Yall are one of the few that could race with a chance to win every year.
And yes the champs wins come from the whole package, so the weight won't hurt him.

I'm dumd but all I keep thinking, over and over is: speed up all the Iron Pintos with one rule change.........Then slow it back down with another??? The few I've talked with get my point?

If its not to slow down the champ then it MUST be another push by the engine builders (ala Alm. head) to drum up buss.?? Nothing else makes adds up.

The change is ill-considered.

Theres more to it than shave down your current flywheel....to thin...you must BUY one. OR just slaping a cam in there....at least the head must be re-setup = $$.
Then the lead if I use anymore lead I could drive through 3 mi island.

Bottom line is I MUST up grade and even if I don't I must add lead!

Mark,
When I wrote in to the BOD & CRB, I told them that I would prefer that the weight remain at 1190. Even with the 1190 min, my car will need 55-65 lb of ballast. So we agree on at least that point, plus I never thought the Alum head was a good, or necessary, idea. As a matter of fact, not wanting to have to buy, install, and dyno with the Alum head was one of the major factors in my decision to convert to Zetec. However, apparently, the Alum head is here to stay, so the proposed rules package deals with all of that, IMO, as well as it can.

[S Lathrop]

If its not to slow down the champ then it MUST be another push by the engine builders (ala Alm. head) to drum up buss.?? Nothing else adds up.

The aluminum head was not a plot from the engine builders. But this is the source of the current problems.

You would do well to redirect your wrath to those who authored the aluminum head.

[Greg Mercurio]

My apologies to Dave G, Stan, and Doug Learned in advance.

Here's a really DUMB idea: Since the Al head is a manufactured part, and every single physical attribute is within the control of the designer and programmer, why make it fow better than an iron head? Why does it need to make more power than an iron head? Seems like this was perhaps overlooked by the CRB and Doug when this was introduced and sold into the GCR.

jeez, now I have a headache.

BTW, I did send my letter of support to the CRB, anything that gives me more torque is a good thing.

[rickb99]

As the time rapidly approach's for the BOD to take action, might I suggest the following.

1.
There are no black helicopters circling over Road America trying to determine how to stop our club champion from winning races.

2.
The aluminum head is here to stay.

3.
The complaining about inequality between the Zetec and the Pinto has been going on almost as long as the war on terrorism.

4.
A lot of good people spent a lot of their personal time, effort and money into coming up with 'something' to address the problem.

5.
Regardless of the out come, it's time to vote by writing! Everybody will be effected by the results differently. Both cost and modifications and where they will choose to race.

So whether you're against or in favor, lets try to keep the discussion on the Forum to the MERITS of the changes as opposed to perceived personal gains on the part of the people involved. What you do with text messaging, phone calls or in the privacy of your own urinal is a different matter!

Now that that's over, how come no new pistons and rods for the Pinto

Which is sort of a joke cause we can't afford a cam, let alone rods and pistons (unless they are done for) or an aluminum head (jeez that's half the price of our car).

[azjc]

Jeff,

This new rule was not written with regional drivers in mind - this was written for the National/Pro guys. I do find it ironic that the GLC car counts are easily 2x the national counts.

Regards,

David

I'd say that is spot on...

[azjc]

As the time rapidly approach's for the BOD to take action, might I suggest the following.
.....
Now that that's over, how come no new pistons and rods for the Pinto

Which is sort of a joke cause we can't afford a cam, let alone rods and pistons (unless they are done for) or an aluminum head (jeez that's half the price of our car).

... and if we'll have to run at 7,000 RPM we'll need the rods & pistons so we don't have to rebuild the engine every weekend!

Catch-22??