Originally Posted by rickjohnson356
Racer Russ
Palm Coast, FL
Yes, if you want the added 3 HP as shown in the charts and maybe 4 HP once your tuner of choice gets done with it.
What ever works. We'll be doing the best we can with what we got. It still takes a driver
CREW for Jeff 89 Reynard or Flag & Comm.
That will be my plan this upcoming season!!!!
What ever works. We'll be doing the best we can with what we got. It still takes a driver
Work on my driving skills.
Jeff Handley
Reynard 84sF
cainesgrandad@yahoo.com ยท www.reynardowners.com
"Luck is when preparation meets opportunity."Roger Penske
oops, can't see my face when reading a post
Perhaps I sounded too angry in the post. I meant it to be more cynical (sp?).
In general, I am supporter of making the FC cars more 'equal' as can be reasonable, after all, that would bring things back to rely more on driver skill (which I don't have)rather than big$$$. But there is no way that I can be fooled into thinking that a 4 hp increase in power will make my ancient rocker-arm car (1991) competitive with a 1998+ VD pushrod car even if I was a good driver.
The cost of the mods for the Pinto guys are actually peanuts when compared to the Zetec conversion costs (18K?) or AL head at 4K. I'm just not interested in spending that much additional for either of those two options. RickB and Jeff are right, I am not required to do it, but for the $300 it would be the least expensive way to get a little closer. It would elimnate the 'what f I had done it? question when I came in after a race.
Would it make the difference between 5th place and 3rd? Only one way to find out...
If they can do a cam swap on exchange basis, that would be the best compromise.
My 350 figure came from the cam + shipping + gaskets + something for my time as well.
Rick here's an old rocker car that goes pretty well...
Last edited by RacerDave51; 08.07.11 at 2:19 PM.
Rocker Car - Chuck Moran
Chuck Moran has the fastest FC rocker car out there. I have seen him run the Run Offs more than once and he does a great job of moving that 1990 vintage Crossle 71F. He holds the Mid Ohio CFC track record on the long course. A few years back I seriously looked at one of his cars he was thinking of selling and chatted a while. He has done a lot to sustain the car and tune it to his driving style and run that car(s) for many years. I think that he had somthing like three frames and parts enough for several cars. I kind of wonder how he would do if he had a modern VD
Howeer, thinking about Chucks car makes me think that the definition of parity we have been talking about is rather narrow. If we wanted true parity in the class we should look at the several generations of the cars and find ways to make 80's & 90's Reynards and 90-95 VD's competitive with 1998+ VD cars - I think it would be great to see a 87-90 Reynard brought to parity with a 2001 VD and running up front. NEVER HAPPEN... but think of all the cars that would suddenly come out...Maybe a few of us should get with the CRB and put together a proposal around that idea - bet that would stir up the troops.
David Keep
It would be fun to watch but a Tech Inspector's worst nightmare...
Give older cars a big weight reduction.
I absolutely agree with David regarding making the older generation of cars more competitive.
I was going to start a separate thread a while back on a significant weight reduction for older cars. Jon B. then mentioned it and I wanted to see what the response might be.
I figured it was a cheap, easy and quick way to gain more parity without any additional engine mods.
I would like to hear all ideas, questions, concerns in this area.
Rob Poma
it's Friday, surely the BOD has already met by phone this week, what's the answer? there's been no advocacy posts since Monday .............
Art
artesmith@earthlink.net
you guys figured out my secret...
The main reason I bought my 1991 Crossle 71F was the fact that I had been following Chuck's ventures at the runoffs for a couple of years.
Since he does so well at the runoffs, I figured that it would be a superior car at the regional level, which is where I hang out.
So far. the car has been very competitive, even against 95 VD. Mark Hatheway turned a 1:09 at Savannah with the Crossle car.
Art, the BoD has a face-to-face this month, which commenced this morning in Topeka. IIRC the meeting lasts through Sunday noon-ish, so we may not hear anything for several days. Stan
Stan Clayton
Stohr Cars
Apples and oranges
Chuck's car is very well developed. Not to mention the fact he is very a talented/skilled driver with a ton of seat time. I have watched him race since I was a kid and now I am 33. He was my instructor at Driver school! And yes he drives the wheels off that car. Looks like we are off topic again. Someone plesae lock this thread
Jeff O
Chuck's car is very well developed. Not to mention the fact he is very a talented/skilled driver with a ton of seat time. I have watched him race since I was a kid and now I am 33. He was my instructor at Driver school! And yes he drives the wheels off that car. Looks like we are off topic again. Someone plesae lock this thread
Trouble maker!!
-Nick
Well, somebody knows what happened but they just aren't willing to talk in public. Guess the 'word' is spreading by phone calls, text messages, low frequency communications with submarines and smoke signals.
You notice they already made public that T3 will be in the run-offs without making the numbers. But this important stuff can wait
Last edited by rickb99; 12.09.08 at 4:09 PM.
CREW for Jeff 89 Reynard or Flag & Comm.
Parity
Well what's the word. Can I start grinding flywheels or not. Two engines in rebuild. Somebody? Anybody? Rudolph says yes and Santa said maybe???? I think everybody thinks it's a done deal to themselves. "Officially" what was the outcome.
JIM (2006 GLC CFC Champion)
It is my understanding that the BoD did not vote on the Zetec/Pinto engine equilibration formula as the 30 day member comment period has not yet been completed. I have also been told that the BoD will revisit the matter at the January meeting. The official note on this is at the link below posted by the Chair of the Comp Board.
http://www.sccabb.com/forum_topics.asp?FID=73
It is essential that interested parties continue to voice their opinion to the Comp Bord and BoD on this matter. More member input is needed.
This is typically STUPID!
1st 2009 Double National is 3 weeks away and drivers don't even know what the 2009 engine rules will be???
Sure, sure I know. Run as is then rip the car apart and change if it's passed.. LOL
Glad we live out west where the season starts in April AND, we have a very good alternative to SCCA (but we do prep to the same rules).
Engine sitting on stands, Ivey down the road. "Hi Jay, here's the engine. Stand by." Geez.
An example of why the OTHER santioning body has a BOD meeting in November. Rule changes propossed by DRIVERS (in September) are voted on by DRIVERS (through a CRB representative meeting from the 5 member clubs) and if passed, only reviewed by the BOD for any very serious problems. The CRB can offer some changes for clarification or 'improvements' to the rule in front of the BOD. Then the BOD votes on the original or alternative and the rules are FROZEN for the next competition year.. A good deal.
One meeting about rules, once a year then EVERYBODY in the room heads for the track to drive, work a specialty or crew. Efficient, effective and energizing.
Last edited by rickb99; 12.11.08 at 1:40 PM.
CREW for Jeff 89 Reynard or Flag & Comm.
Two questions....
We've seen the power curve - what's the torque curves on all three engines look like?
Using a re-ground cam - what does it do to the very critical rocker arm contact pattern / valve length issue with the Pinto 2.0 SOHC engine? Might be it's not going to be a simple ".. just replace the cam" issue.
John H.
Reynard 88SF
By definition, the relationship between horsepower and torque is:
Horsepower = (Torque x RPM)/5252
From this, one derives:
Torque = (5252 x Horsepower)/RPM
Now, if two motors produce the same Horsepower at the same RPM, they will produce the same Torque at the same RPM. To put that another way, if two motors have the same Horsepower curves, they must also have the same Torque curves.
In the case of the FC engine package, while the three Horsepower curves are not absolutely identical, they are quite close within the useful RPM range. Thus, their Torque curves must also be quite close in that RPM range.
By the way, a dyno measures torque directly; horsepower is calculated using the formula above and is then presented pictorially as a graph.
Dave
Rick, If i cheat in january and they change can i appeal and win? Another classic cluster ****.
Yes, azjc what Dave said. It is math. If you want to "see" the TQ curves, pick a number of points on the HP curves and do the math....surely the source of the HP plots could make it easier and post the TQ plots as well.
A HP curve that climbs at the same rate the rpms climb is a result of a flat torque "curve". Torque and HP plots cross at 5252 rpms. Torque will be twice HP value at 2626 and half HP at 10504.
Just left the SEDIV Annual Convention.
One piece of news. The proposed rules package passed the BOD.
Pintos get light flywheels and new cam.
Zetecs get 1340 and new map.
all cars will have 1200 min weight.
ALL RIGHT !!!!!!!!!! Now we can move forward!
Dave Weitzenhof
Now that the cat is out of the bag (we had been asked by the BoD to wait until Fastrack appears next week before saying anything), let me clarify a couple of things above.
All changes will be effective 3/1/09.
The new cam is for the iron head only.
The lightened flywheel is for all Pintos and the minimum weight will be 10.5 pounds (this is a change from the original proposal because the engine builders were convinced that cast flywheels would not be safe at 9.5 pounds).
The new cam will be in production soon. There are none available yet which is why the effective date is 3/1.
The new Zetec map will be posted on the SCCA web site in a couple of weeks.
Dave
I understand the need for, and agree with the Pinto changes. My national days were over with many years ago, and now I am just running regionals, so I hope that not too many guys make the switch at that level this year. I need to spend more $ on a cam and flywheel like I need the proverbial hole in the head this season. It may have helped if I knew about this sooner. Oh well-a project for the end of 2009 when the engine comes back out.
Update: I just realized I have a new old stock cam somewhere. Does anybody know the answer to the following:
1. Will the new profile cause us to have to change the cam timing spec?
2. If not, can we just plug n play?
3. Can the flywheels be lightened, or do we have to purchase a new one?
Thanks
Bob
Last edited by Bob Coury; 01.18.09 at 9:30 AM.
Just to add on to Bob's questions above, what is involved with lightening the flywheel? I was actually planning to reinstall the engine this weekend and have already decided not to worry about the cam upgrade for now.
Can the flywheel be lightened without messing up the balance of the crank? I'm not sure if the engine builders, Elite in my case, balance the crank on its own or with the flywheel as one unit.
If its a simple matter of bringing the flywheel to a suitable machine shop I'll think about doing it, but if its more complicated then it can wait until the next time the engine is overhauled.
Can anyone translate what four pounds off the flywheel actually means in terms of lap times?
Thanks,
Rob
Rob Zatz
Flywheels- call Elite or QS- They understand what needs to be done.
Cam- My understanding is that the change is small and will really only be noticed at the pointy end of National or Pro racing motors (all else being equal).
Map/restrictor- Zetec owners will be pleased. A bunch of us tested it in Florida and think it will satisfy most of the issues. You will have to rethink gears vs the old map.
Weight- 1200lbs works for me
BTW, the Pro Series rules are aligned with Club re motors (Pro weight is 1220lbs, mostly due to the heavier radial tire)
----------
In memory of Joe Stimola and Glenn Phillips
Early in the life of pinto race motors is was pretty standard to balance the crank and flywheel as separate parts. Thus you could change flywheels without have to do a complete rebuild. I still balance the fly wheel separate from the crank. Your mileage may vary.
A good machinist can turn down the stock flywheel. You may not want to turn down to 10.5 on the lathe, because you may have to drill later for balance.
I think 10.5 was a good compromise. The only safe way to get to 9.5 or lower was to start with the Ford Motorsports flywheel. This way those with stock flywheels can comply without having to go out and buy a new flywheel.
Zetecs get 1340 and new map.
What is the zetec 1340?
The flywheel weight of 10.5 lb was chosen since the engine builders thought 9.5 lb was pushing the limit on safety for the early cast iron flywheels. I personally would send my flywheel to one of the known engine builders to ensure the weight is taken off the best places in a safe manner. I dont know what 4 lb translates to in lap times, but unlike lightened differentials and carriers, the flywheel spins at engine RPM, so I would believe that this will be a noticeable effect. But realistically, on an FC, I cant believe it is more than a tenth on a stop watch.
The cam has a small change in profile from a stock cam. It is my understanding that the new profile has an approximately .015 increase in intake lift with no change in exhaust profile. This yields no measureable change in lobe centerline and therefore cam timing and exhaust systems should not benefit from tuning. We are talking about a small increase in lift for the intake only and that is it.
Within the next week or so I will post a step by step set of instructions on how to install the new cam on a late model Van Diemen with the head on the car.
I also have been told that most stock cams can be reground with the new profile. I am sure that Quicksilver and the other engine builders will have exchange cams in stock soon, send in your stock cam as a core for a reground and surface finished cam.
1340 is 1.340 inches diameter restrictor hole. The old one was 1.295.
BTW, I have new serial numbered restrictors available for Series (and Club) drivers. Sandy also has them available. Email me at F200090@aol.com
----------
In memory of Joe Stimola and Glenn Phillips
Any changes in performance are always exciting, and therefore this is an exciting change.
My overall impression is that most participants of this thread, and of course those responsible for these changes, were pretty confident about the outcome. In other words, everyone was pretty sure that these changes were "It", the solution to parity.
What I saw more than once in this thread was, to paraphrase: 'this is the best that we can come up with'.
I accept that as true.
My point is whether we have to bother keeping track of performance, finishes and lap times, once the changes go into effect.
I say this because I haven't been part of this racing community long enough to know if these adjustments are once-in-a-lifetime, or if they go on constantly.
Or, if these adjustments are just seat-of-the-pants, which means the result of discussion and bench racing.
It's always interesting when the racing community calls for testing. It certainly came up in this thread.
There was some Summit Point testing a couple of years ago that got the ball rolling. The results of that testing, and other suggested testing, always seemed to get watered down, because the right drivers weren't there, or the weather wasn't right, or the aero wasn't right. There were comments that real testing is pointless because conditions will never be perfect.
There were some attempts to quantify Pinto v. Zetec performance in this thread, including references to a radar gun and corner speeds. The only persuasive results I saw in this thread were from Mr. Caldwell, whose driver had accurate and repeatable place finishes in his Pinto versus his Zetec.
So I wonder if we all need to start writing down lap times, Pinto v. Zetec, throughout the year, save them up, and do the math, either mid-year, or in the fall.
It won't really make any difference if this is "It".
Last edited by Peter Horvath; 01.18.09 at 9:19 PM.
[quote=Rick Silver;199545]
I dont know what 4 lb translates to in lap times, but unlike lightened differentials and carriers, the flywheel spins at engine RPM, so I would believe that this will be a noticeable effect. But realistically, on an FC, I cant believe it is more than a tenth on a stop watch.
This yields no measureable change in lobe centerline and therefore cam timing and exhaust systems should not benefit from tuning. quote]
From my experience a lighter flywheel means when you let off the throttle the RPM drops quicker, less over rev from a missed shift (less mass = less momentum).
So the "Little change in the cam profile means we wont have to worry about re-adjusting the rocker contact?
BTW - Seems like a current F1 engine will stop rotating from 18K RPM is less tne a second when fuel/ign is cut...
John H.
Reynard 88SF
1. Actually, a lighter flywheel means MORE chance of an over-rev if an upshift is missed. The engine revs faster, meaning you have to let off the throttle more quickly. In either case, once the throttle is closed, it will not speed up more - momentum, by itself, maintains speed/rpm, but will not increase it. It is true, though, that with the lighter flywheel, once the throttle is closed, the revs will drop more quickly, but by then the damage has likely already been done.
2. Rocker re-profiling, IMO, should not be required.
Last edited by DaveW; 01.18.09 at 6:10 PM. Reason: More thoughts added
Dave Weitzenhof
Parity Value
I am still trying to figure out how I am ahead when I get to spend $1,000 for my pinto motor and others get to spend $25 dollars. If I have this right we are raising the barriers to entry for pinto cars in regional classes -- not sure how that improves car counts... that was the goal - was it not?
David Keep
Reynard 90SF
What part of the Zetec being cheaper to operate is a surprise? I think the goal was to remove some of the disenfranchisement and uncertainty in the class brought by both the Zetec & the Ally head being introduced. If you are adamant against any change, then your chance to disallow those has passed; to allow those and not this is pretty silly. Yes, the zetec was sold as one thing, but the ally head has made both of them another and it seems this is the least painful way to fix the predicament. That $1000 amortizes over many seasons, unlike a $800 set of tires, and brings the class into something sensical again, no? Consider it an investment in your class, not your car, for the betterment of the entire class.
------------------
'Stay Hungry'
JK 1964-1996 #25
Parity Value
Tim
I have never opposed Parity for the Zetec cars - I wrote to the BOD and Comp Board being for Parity, However the baseline is just flat wrong - Pinto Iron Cars don't need fixing - the Zetec cars could have been mapped to the current iron motors. To me the $1k spend did not have to happen - we could have used used the pinto iron as the base. Instead the SCCA went for a Grand Solution - and tried to roll up the Alu cars - all potentially 18 of them...
So the decision is in place - we will spend the $1,000. As an aside when someone tells me we are making an investment - the "investment" comes out of my pocket. But In the end if we see more than Dave W amd John Larue in Zetecs at Nationals in Great Lakes Division then there might be a value - that is the challenge to the Zetec guys.
Since the decision in in place - this is the last of my bitching on the matter
David Keep
Reynard 90SF
So, if they only create parity between the pinto w/ iron head and the zetec and keep the ally head like they are you'd be spending $4k on a new head to go as fast as the rules allow. I don't see the basis for angst against zetec owners here...
------------------
'Stay Hungry'
JK 1964-1996 #25
I don't think it's anything against Zetec owners who have been trying to get things level. I think it's probably frustration from having the same engine formula that the masses have, and being forced to spend a grand to be equal to the two minority engine options.
It's ass-backwards, and it's the SCCA's maneuvers with the aluminum head Pinto that caused all of it. Instead of admitting a wrong, they are putting an expensive Band-Aid on the rules to bring it all into line again. Instead of handicapping the aluminum head Pinto and getting the Zetec into line with the fastest steel head Pinto to make everything even without expense to the masses, they left the aluminum head cars relatively untouched and handicapped the majority with added expenses.
I would be frustrated too, but as has been mentioned before, the time to protest was when the aluminum head was ram-rodded into the rules.
But for all intents and purposes, the masses in FC who are using steel heads are probably not looking for the last Nth to get to the podium of the RunOffs. There probably isn't any need to make any changes to your steel headed Pinto motor unless you are replacing these parts during a rebuild.
Agreed. I don't have an FC, but am still bothered by this.
Racer Russ
Palm Coast, FL
There are currently 20 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 20 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
