Fellas;
Lets get back on course, on glidepath regarding this reduced flywheel business. I'll post the response I received from Hewland regarding wear on the dogs when I get home this evening.
Iverson
[email="milspec@brainerd.net"]milspec@brainerd.net[/email]
-----Original Message-----
From: William Hewland [mailto:william.h@hewland-engineering.co.uk]
Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 10:53 AM
To:
Subject: Fw: Question for the FFU
Hi, Colin Reynolds forwarded your e-mail to me.
I would only expect good things from a lighter flywheel, as the lower inertia will exert less force on to the gear dogs. This should give a lighter shift with less damage.
I am happy to answer any other specific questions. Please see the `help` page on [url="http://www.hewland.com,"]www.hewland.com,[/url] which I wrote.
I will have a browse at the FFU site too.
Best regards,
William Hewland
Iverson
Post Scriptum - Regrettably, I must say so long.
Here I go again....
"No minimum weight, alternate manufacture allowed, alternate materials, stock ring gear size and location"
Flame away....
So what Hewland is saying is that the heavy flywheel is costing us all MONEY!!!! Dogs and damage when the crank blows. So, SCCA, put that in your pipe and smoke it.
TODD: why do you say no minimum weight? Is it because no one really knows what the optimum weight should be? What would happen if a club guy, like me, lightened the wheel just as economic measure? Would there be glaring increase in HP and speed?
This whole thing seems so obvious, I cannot understand why SCCA would resist it.
Where do I sign the petition?
Okay, here goes again: Petitions are not part of the process. A proposal must be sent to the Comp Board - well thought out and with backup info. It is good to get engine builder support. Once the proposal is received by the Board, they will consider it and request member input. Jay Ivey is hot on the trail of a 14 lb. alum flywheel - an aftermarket piece - which would simply be purchased, checked and installed. The cost would be something like $200 versus $400 for an OEM part to be found and prepped. Don't quote me to the dollar here - I can't recall Jay's exact numbers at the moment. I previously proposed the lighter flywheel to the CB but without any backup or support from Jay and the others. The time is probably ripe for a new proposal and then mucho support from all the FF racers out there. I'll contact Jay and see what he might know about the deal at this time.
Dale Carter
2003 VanDiemen FE #29
Life is Good
Question...is there another OEM flywheel from another Ford engine that will fit? The circle-track mini stocks use the lighter 14 pound steel Ford Escort flywheel on their 2.0 and 2.3 engines.
They have an aluminum option too if their track or club allow them. Just a wild thought...
Regards,
Gerry Dedonis
The reason for my stance on it is simple.
There are a number of aftermarket flywheels on the market that can be had for as little or less than what is needed to reduce the weight of the stock one to some level of say 14lbs.
Secondly, the fact remains that as soon as we allow this to be done ANYONE who feels they are worth their salt will cut them to say 14lbs. EVERY engine builder will tout the benefits of doing this and may be right, but of course you'll opt for 14lbs not the heavier 15lbs+ That means in a few years you'll be right back where you are now trying to either 1. get a further reduction as yours is now going to be under (assuming we play fair) or 2. TRY to locate another new one or a good core 20lb-er that you can spend more money on all over again!
Next, as most engine builders will in short order lay claim to fame about which way is the BEST way to reduce this mass, the tech gurus won't be able to simply look under your car and see if it is legal or not (you can damn near do this today) as some will look like A, some like B or some even C in their design! That means tear downs if all hell breaks loose and nobody wants that.
Lastly by simply stating that the wheel must retain the stock or stock size ring gear we can 1. only go so far in lightening it, 2. keep the stock starters (as I stated before SOMEONE will design a superstarter for an 8" ring gear given the opportunity- ca-ching$$) and 3. have a choice in manufacture at prices that are reasonable.
With no minimum there is no requirements to be met. Simple and effective.
Check the Bean catalog for some basic options and I may pass along another link to a part that would meet the goal and at a very reasonable cost.
I admit I'm not a true engine builder (despite my years of assembling Russell shcool mules) but in the end I doubt that there would be much difference in a 12lbs steel vs. a 12lbs cast, vs. an aluminum with steel insert. What speeds up faster must also slow down faster, there is some point of no value in some of it.
Thinking about it, someone had to have this same arguement about road wheels years ago too. If not, we'd all be running steel wheels. Seems to have worked out ok here too.
[size="1"][ September 07, 2002, 09:40 PM: Message edited by: Todd TCE ][/size]
perhaps since a petition is not the way to go, then can someone notify us that a proposal has been sent to the comp board so that we can bombard them with emails backing the new proposal?
eagerly awaiting the word to go....
John
Todd's idea is clearly the most logical and the most economic. Will this be the proposal sent to the SCCA?
I haven't a car right now (temporary setback), but I'll contact whomever I need to support the proposal.
Bill
With rebuild season starting in CENDIV, it's time to resurrect the aborted attempt to record flywheel resonance frequency on the dyno. If anyone is getting their engine dyno'd at Andresen's this fall, let me know the schedule and I'll see if I can get the prox sensors and oscilloscope. Tom is in favor of a lightened flywheel, and has been very cooperative in letting me do the testing. My engine is going in too, I just don't know when yet.
Any member can send a proposal to the CB for consideration. It should be short, conscise, and well reasoned. Should you choose to do so, you should post it here, and we will watch for it in FasTrack. Once it is published in FasTrack, we can all INDIVIDUALLY post support via e-mail to the CB. gm
In 1985 I built a very HOT cortina engine for less tha $2500. This is the same very stable engine design used by a known C sports racer in the SE region. Since I was intending to convert my Royale RP-3A to a C -Sports, I put this engine in it and ran as a FA in the regionals.
It had a 7.5 lb flywheel cut down from the original one. I still have the drawings that could be the basis for a new SCCA spec drawing. Turning on a lathe is one of cheapest things a machine shop does. As I remember, the thing cost $150 to tuen down and balance with the crank.
The regional FF ranks were dwindling even back then, I was still put in with the FF's.
I started with a Cortina engine out of the junk yard. Here are the mods:
1. Flywheel cut down to 7.5 lbs
2. Head ported by hand(not flowed)
3. Flat top pistons to increase the compression ratio to 11 to 1
4. Balnce job at a local engine shop
5. FF valve springs
At the first pratice session at my drivers school at Charlotte Motor Speedway(3.2 miles) I put at the back of the field that included two super V's and 3 FF's. WITH THIS ENGINE, I PASSED THE ENTIRE FIELD BEFORE THE END OF THE FIRST LAP.
At my first regionl race at Road Atlanta, I showed up too late to qualify. Again I started at the back of the pack of 12FF's. Two of the FF's were front runner national cars. On the first lap I deliberately stayed back until the back straight away. When we hit the straight, I PASSED ALL 10 OF THE REGIONAL CARS........I stayed on the same lap as the National FF's until I blew a lifter and DNF'd. (I could not buy a new set of lifters in time so I used the ones that came with the engine from the junk yard.)
Now if I could make this engine for real cheap, why can't the SCCA come in and change the rules to make all engines this cheap. Why do you have to have the engine builder's buy in? I thought this was a driver's class? Blown engines keep engine builders in business. The more reliable the motor, the less they sell.
As the FF field further dwindles, the engine builders will have to charge more money for their engines(marketing). Hey, but with a 50% increase in the filed, the engine builders will make the same amount of money with a $4000 engine that they currently make with $6000 engines. What is the SCCA doing to incrase the FF field - nada.
Go to a regional race. A FF "race" is about three or four cars thrown in with the few FA's, FV's and F500's that are left. What kindof "race" is that?
Does anyone know or care that the race occured. Did that race at all advance the winner any further to and eventual Indy ride.
Bryan J. Pacelli<br />FC #16
I'll take the time to write it up and send it in. I'll simply reference the same info that I have here. Let's see what comes of it.
Anyone wanting to 'disagree' with my thoughts? Please explain your position as I'm certainly not suggesting this is the only proposal.
Todd;
I want to support your proposal. How do I do I do that short of sending in a letter myself?
I am in favor of the reduced weight flywheel but would prefer an aftermarket product from Tilton or Quartermaster. My reasoning is that they have the engineering to make one consistently, reliably and safely. My concern with no minimum weight is someone going too far and having a flywheel come apart at 7000 RPM. This is why NHRA makes the competitors add flywheel shields, etc. to their cars to keep the flywheels from entering the cockpit. When I emailed Tilton they were very willing to assist in the design and engineering of the part, their only concern was that their design would be handed to a cheaper off-shores company to be built leaving them with the development costs and no revenue. Apparently this was done previously to them. If the $200 figure is close I think we should stick with having a reputable company produce them and mandate them as the only alternative to the OEM unit.
I've had this 'con' thrown at me before and I do believe it's a fair asssesment of what 'could' happen.
But, I'm going to go out on a limb here and point out the following;
Firrst, most engine shops won't do some unrealistic cut for you as they too are concerned about damages to the motor and the part. Not the track or others, but the same net result. No engine builder running top motors is going to place his name on some paper thin part knowing full well the backlash.
Secondly, I'd bet that few of you have a lathe to properly do this at home and those that do probably have more common sense than to do this to a unsafe level.
Thirdly, the cost of doing this and time involved can more than be off set by purchasing a tested one from a reputable company as suggested. Sometimes it just aint worth it! Aside from turnnig it down, there is balancing and refinsh work to do. Then add in a clutch step if needed and I'm guessing this totals more than the cost of one already done.
Lastly, to take the position of not wanting it to explode on the track is fine, but where in the rules does it prohibit someone from leaving the scavage line loose, or a drain plug loose and oiling down the track? We'd like to think that smarts comes into play here, but in the end accidents happen and we learn from them.
Can it happen? Yes. Is it going to happen? Maybe. Same can be said for many of the things that go wrong in racing. Hopefully if this is really to be considered we can help those who may be headed down the wrong road and save us all some grief.
I have been autocrossing a Lola 342 since 1986. In 1990 I purchased an aluminum flywheel/clutch combo from 10,000 RPM. The clutch turned out to be junk, so I had the flywheel modified for a Tilton OT II clutch, with a Tilton heat shield attached to the flywheel. The flywheel weighs 5 pounds. I have not had any problems with the flywheel or clutch since. On occasions the tattle tale on the tach reads 8200 after I finish a run.
Mods to the motor include 11:1 pistons, sidedraft webers, mild cam, and a torsen diff. I am running the stock crank and rods. I have not rebuilt this motor since 1996.
I see no reason why an aluminum flywheel would not be durable in road race, and agree with the above posts about a light weight flywheel lengthening the life of a motor.
Dave,
You ran 11:1 also(see my previous post) with a lightened flywheel.
Thanks for writing in to show the rest that a 1600cc Ford motor it can be modified safely and cheaply for much less than the $6000 the rest are paying for a "stock" engine. As a governing body, the $CCA gods should review "their" rules and all other options annually so that fewer drivers are locked out of competing due to spiraling costs.
The more data that is gathered from guys like you and me should hopefully be put forward to the $CCA gods to show that there are inexpensive alternatives to bring this back to a "club" level.
I am an aerospace engineer with extensive design background and understand fatigue in dynamic reciprocating components. This one is a no brainer. Reducing the load on the crank from both an accelerating and descellerating engine will extend the fatigue life of the crank.
I'll put it in simpler terms for the audience:
Accelerating engine: Piston go up, compress gas, gas go boom. Piston get thrown down cylider at VERY, VERY high speed, faster than flywheel is spinning. Centripital inertia of flywheel resist load put on it putting VERY high tortional load on fragile crank. Do this many, many times over in engine spinning at 6500 RPM, when fatigue life of crank is exceeded, crank go BOOOOOM.
Descelerating engine: Driver let off gas during downshift to match revs to tranny(NO DOWNSHIFT TO SLOW CAR WITH CLUTCH, VERY VERY BAD), flywheel still spinning reeeel fast but in split second inertia of pistons and rods want them to slow down reeeel quick. 19lb flywheel put big load into crank against inertial load AND FRICTION drag of pistons and rods. Do this many times over in engine going 6500 rpm, when fatigue life of crank is exceeded, crank go BOOOOM.
Thanks again,
Lola 342
I tend to agree with Joe's suggestion of a minimum weight and specified suppliers of an aluminum flywheel. These people have the expertise and resources to make a safe, reliable product. Oddly enough I wrote to the Comp Board a couple of years ago to promote remachining of the iron flywheel to a spec weight-12 lbs, reasoning that it was pretty cheap and available to everyone. They wrote back and said that was contrary to the policy of keeping "high tech" out of the class. Go figure.
I see two things happening if they allowed unrestricted machining. First, the engine builders WILL go too far. It is a necessary progression to achieve an 'edge'. Second, guys like me with a lathe and a tight wallet will try to cut our own with very little know-how of the physics, etc. that are required. We will also go too far, but out of ignorance and the same hope to achieve an edge. Same result.
I've seen flywheels explode in closed cars with devastating results. I've also seen chunks of the flywheel exit the bottom of the bellhousing, bounce off the track and go right back up through the car, roof and all. I'm sure the board would demand scattershields or steel bellhousings in this case.
Having raced for 30 odd years, though only a couple in cf I would agree with Joe and Tom. (Maybe it is a cen div thing?) Having my own lathe and understanding the racing mindset, I believe a minimum would be desireable. I wouldn't oject to selecting an existing product off the shelf and I would sleep much easier if we went with a lighter flywheel. I worry a lot about my engine assembly.
I am not too familiar with the specifics, but is it possible to have a minimum weight that can be satisfied with a purchased flywheel for those who wish and within reason for those who have the equipment to modify their own?
Tuck,
I think you'll find a couple of flywheels on the market that can be had for very reasonable costs, and thus I believe would be the preferred choice over machining the stock one. Even those with a lathe to do so would be spending time and money on it that could be better spent on the aftermarket one. I'm not sure I agree on the pro motor builder guys doing foolish things but then again if they want to eat a motor repair and face the fall out that's up to them.
I cannot say for sure the min of the stock part with any life in it, but I've seen and used them to 12lbs and there is NO WAY you can machine it down to about 5-8lbs. At least not without it being wafer thin.
As an alternative to my suggestion (and I have to state that I think some of this is being just thought out way too much, but I respect those opinions and if we don't agree to do SOMETHING then what's the point) perhaps a minimum weight of 8lbs is in order? At that level there has to be some off the shelf parts that fit and there is little chance the stock one can be cut to that. I'm just throwing out numbers here guys, pick one and we can debate it.
Hi Todd: I agree with most of what's gone on here, but...I think a more reasoned approach would be to pick an aftermarket flywheel(s) from a reputable source(s), WE write the spec for the flywheel around this model(s), and present this to the CB as the baseline design.
Then the engineering is done, the sourcing is done, the DIY's have a spec, and we can get on with this. I don't think we need to spend a year researching this, we just need to pick a represetantive flywheel and go forward. The worst that can happen is that it will be rejected again. And we'll present it again.
Debating here about ideal weight won't get the proposal to the CB. I volunteer write the spec and present it here for member input before sending to Topeka.
gm
As part of the design I think we should incorporate support/mounting of all three of the clutches in use: stock, 7.25 and 5.5 inch. This would minimize inventory for our suppliers and provide a standard part that we all could use while providing a clutch upgrade path if we choose to take it. My 2 cents.
Wholly concur.
AN aftermarket flywheel that will adapt to the various clutch configs is best.
Fellas;
There is a tremendous pool of SMEs out there, but from my chair here, we are no closed to getting this resolved than when we started. I think [b]ALL[/b] will agree reduced weight is good, but we seem to be quibbling on minutia. Let’s get a plan.
First, let us select either this thread or the other. We're discussing essentially the same thing here, but we all need to get on the proverbial "same sheet of music".
Greg Mercurio: You offered to draft an information paper. Is it still good?
John Merriman: Any help from Jay. All of this may be for naught, as I understand something may be in the offing.
Iverson
[email="milspec@brainerd.net"]milspec@brainerd.net[/email]
I emailed Jay but obviously he has no time right now due to RunOffs. I'll get him next week. I know for a fact Jay is in favor of an aftermarket aluminum flywheel at about 14 lbs. - already available off the shelf.
Dale Carter
2003 VanDiemen FE #29
Life is Good
Hi Rick: Actually, the offer was to help critique and then finalize a draft that was going to be prepared by a team of people that started working ont he crank issue last year. I don't know the status on that project, as I was only peripherally involved. If all we want is a simple (preferred) request to the CB, I'd be more than happy to draft that, once I had the consensus that the flywheel being proposed meets with general ff1600 member approval, and we get concurrence from a bunch of professional builders.
gm
Flywheel rules are a fun topic. In S2 we must run the "standard component", whatever that means. Actually, there are three different ones now in use, and perfectly legal: the original taxicab looking thing, a rare industrial looking one that can be turned down so that the weight is in the center, and the new SVO steel ones that are made with all the weight in the center. As far as I know, there is no shortage of the original part. In FF the flywheel is some sort of sacred cow to the rules guys. Go figure.
I agree with Rick, we need to move forward on this so we can get it approved in time for next season. Is there a way on this forum to post past submissions to the comp board particularly the ones that were approved? These could then be used as templates for future submissions. If there is a flywheel available off the shelf who has it and can we get the engineering drawings to submit with the proposal? Do we need the dyno testing suggested in the past as part of the submission? If so, can Jay help us with that as well?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
