Zink Z-12

[S Lathrop]

Steve,

If the upper frame rail is bent, and the beam attaches to the front of the frame
near the bend, wouldn't that effect the wheelbase on the right side of the car
as compared to the drivers left side? Could it also change the castor if the bend
was also toward the top of the frame?

Thanks!

Mark

The top rail is 18 ga MS the bend is most likely that tube stretching. When you bend the beam, you get both the top rails.

[mark5pa]

I will question the length of time Mark has been storing the car. It only seems like 15 years. I expect it was 2006 rather than 96.

Duh! It was '06.
I have some good solid leads now. Even a guy in Vancouver! He has a few he rents out.

[Tiago Santos]

Even a guy in Vancouver! He has a few he rents out.

ah! It was only a matter of time

(it ain't me..)

[Bill Bonow]

You know, if the monoposto guys ever realize that plenty of FV's were built after 1968 and that a secondary time frame/rules FV class (much like the VARA guys) would bring them loads of entries (beyonds the loads they have now), this car would be a fantastic vintage FV.

Hell, as Steve O pointed out, put a good engine, fresh tires and a hot shoe in this car and it could be at the pointy end of the Runoffs.

For $2,500, I'm really surprised this car hasn't been snapped up already.

[Amon]

Bill,

The Monoposto guys are more concerned about their investment than number
of entries. The FF guys have finally added CF in some area's but it has taken
years for that to happen and they have to run on treaded tires that aren't period
correct for their cars.

Mark

[mark5pa]

Car is going to Rochester this Saturday. Got my asking $ plus $100 for gas to run it up to him.
Thanks to all those who posted and called inquired.
Mark

[jgaither]

I remember seeing the parts that Ed built for a push rod, zero roll, shock setup on the original Z4 FV (or what ever he called it). That was in 1974.

I drove the very first Z12 and it was not very fun. The roll bar was even with the fan housing and the rear suspension was Z-bar with the shocks mounted even with the roll bar, forward of the engine, at the outer corners of the frame. That is why the frame is so wide. If you look close at this car you might see remnants of the original setup.

I haven't logged into this site for a long time, so just saw this thread. I bought the first customer car from Ed and Harry in late '75 for the '76 season. Rollin Butler assembled it. Steve had the only other one. I drove both cars that year all over the place trying to get to the RUnoff's in the days when only 4 drivers per region earned an invite. I just missed. The car was a real frustration all year though we tried very hard. I sold mine at the end of the season and moved up to FF in Z10 - which I loved and had some success with. My Z12 eventually ended up with George Fizell who modified it for the correct rear suspension and for better cooling - as I recall. The rest is history. That same car is now the one owned by Mr. Oseth. I got to see it at Roebling during the 45th FV Birthday party. I'm glad the car turned out right, but I sure wish that had happened in '76. The Brookshire Agitator was dominent that year. Jim won a well deserved championship in '76.

[Rickydel]

Being a "Monoposto Guy", I'd like to respond to your previous comments.

We have considered extending the date of manufacture for our vintage vee fields.
#1 We just aren't getting a whole lot of inquiries from owners of cars made after 1969 that want to play.
#2 There doesn't seem to be a shortage of monoposto cars yet, as our fields continue to thrive. We'll have at least 30 at Gingerman May 5.
#3 Our group agrees that one of the attractive features of VSCDA Vintage Vees is having a single class on the track. You don't find this around much anymore, in any kind of road racing.

That said, we know eventually it will happen. We just don't know when.

Regarding our "investments", I really don't think extending the date of manufacture will have any affect on our cars' worth. A monoposto vintage vee costs about the same as any other vee. Levels of preparation taken into account, just the same as others. They are hardly "investments".


Ricky

[S Lathrop]

Being a "Monoposto Guy", I'd like to respond to your previous comments.

We have considered extending the date of manufacture for our vintage vee fields.
#1 We just aren't getting a whole lot of inquiries from owners of cars made after 1969 that want to play.
#2 There doesn't seem to be a shortage of monoposto cars yet, as our fields continue to thrive. We'll have at least 30 at Gingerman May 5.
#3 Our group agrees that one of the attractive features of VSCDA Vintage Vees is having a single class on the track. You don't find this around much anymore, in any kind of road racing.

That said, we know eventually it will happen. We just don't know when.

Regarding our "investments", I really don't think extending the date of manufacture will have any affect on our cars' worth. A monoposto vintage vee costs about the same as any other vee. Levels of preparation taken into account, just the same as others. They are hardly "investments".


Ricky

I owned 2 Zink C4 Zink FVs. One was a 1969 and the other was a 1973. How do you know when a car was built? I know the differences between the '69 and the '73 cars but most people would not. Zink never marked the frames as to when they were built. Zink's records only counted the number of frames they sold. Also many earlier Zink FV were modified to to take the later body work.

The 1968 and earlier Zink FVs had to have their frames replaced because of a change in the rules interpertation. If someone replaced the frame in 1970 would that car be legal?

Maybe you might consider extending the date for cars that were in production prior to 1969.

[Rickydel]

Hi Steve,

Actually, the Zink you used to own, restored by Bob Shedd and vintage raced by Phil Cull for many years, has a new owner in Indiana, and will be in our drivers school this coming weekend.

When a vee has it's production run starting before 1970, the same basic designs are allowed for cars produced after 1969. The cars do need to be back dated to 1969 rules though. Fans, working generators, no 0 roll resistance suspensions......

Ricky

[Amon]

Ricky,

I was actually referring to the FF guys who for many years only accepted cars to 1972.
If you would accept D-13's and other Fv's from the 70's (which are now +30 yrs. old),
I bet your entries would increase 50% from the already great numbers you currently
are encountering. I hope you didn't take it as a negative jab because that wasn't my
original intention.

Mark

[Rickydel]

Mark,

Just info being sent back and forth. No worries.

BTW, the fact that Vintage Vees do not cost an exhorbitant amount is part of our success.

That, and spec. tires, and lots of track time, and parties, our own race group, etc.,,,,,,

[Amon]

Ricky,

I agree and as you know, I'm heading in your direction soon and look forward to
racing with you guys sooner than later! My short term goal is to acquire a vintage
vee plus a D-13 I can convert into a FST, so I'm in aircooled cars hopefully for many
years in the future! Take care and good luck at Gingerman!

Mark

92' Protoform P-1

[DLRacing]

I'm fixing the frame, correcting engineering mistakes, and restoring the Z-12 to run in VSCDA, this year.

[S Lathrop]

I'm fixing the frame, correcting engineering mistakes, and restoring the Z-12 to run in VSCDA, this year.

I would be curious as to what you consider an engineering mistake.

If you have one of the very first Z12, you might have something to fix but after that issue was fixed, the Z12 finished second at the run offs that year and then had 2 back to back national for a total of 4 championships over 6 years. The fix was designed by Ed Zink, I have the original sketch he made.

[S Lathrop]

I'm fixing the frame, correcting engineering mistakes, and restoring the Z-12 to run in VSCDA, this year.

If you are referring to the car that is pictured at the beginning of this post, that car is the first stage of the evolution of the Z12. The very first cars had some real issues with the design of the rear suspension. The car that is pictured at the beginning of this post is maybe stage 2 and may have been the first car to adapt a D13 rear suspension system to the car. The car I used for development was the car driven by John Hogdal and he tried the modifications that are on the car in the picture. But we changed that setup prior to the run offs because I did not want to run a car with parts pirated from someone else's design. Ed Zink drew up the rear suspension setup we used for the run offs that year. The run offs were the first race for that setup and we finished 2nd. After that I sold nearly 100 of the rear suspension setups that Ed designed for not only Z12s but several other makes of FVs..

With the 84 Citation FV, we made a significant improvement in the design of the rear bell crank system and won another run offs with that design. In 1995 I did my last FV design and on that car I combined many features of the Z12 and the 84 FV. The rear bell cranks went through another significant design evolution. But that car was set aside to concentrate on FF and FC designs. I think there is a lot of room for even more bell crank design evolution based on the work I have been doing on FCs over the last 2 decades.

That is a little history of the evolution of the Zink-Citation FV designs that grew out of the Z12. Your "design flaw" was simply a step in the evolution of a successful FV design. And you are starting with a car that was modified from the original and not by the producers of the Z12. But the car you have or at least the one in the picture was the first step in the progress that the "factory" made along with the help of a bunch of talented drivers who race the Z12 FVs.

[jgaither]

George won those championships in the Z12 that I owned in 1976. We didn't get the suspension and cooling challenges figured out that season. I moved on to FF and George bought the car from the man I sold it to. George fixed it and won a LOT of races with it. Unless it has changed hands in the last few years it belongs now to one of the Oseth brothers. I saw it last at one of the FV birthday party events at RRR.

I looked it up in the SCCA archives. Fizell won in 83 & 84 in a Z12 SPR. 2nd in 85. I'm not sure what the SPR stands for, maybe a sponsor.

Add Wayne Moore in 79 & 80... 3rd in 81

It was a very good car!

[fvracerone1]

Would i fit? Moore and Fizell were jockey size if I remember.....

[S Lathrop]

I was 6'2" and 220 pounds when I built and race the Z12. It was a very comfortable car.

The ATL fuel cell in the pictures of the car above is not the correct cell to use and will move the driver forward. I consider the changes that I have seen people make to the Z12 and other Citation Zink cars so they could use ATL fuel cells, compromise both performance and safety of the cars.

Eagle Fuel Cells has built cells for me that I feel are superior to ATL, and fit in the cars that I have build. You do not have to modify teh roll bars when you use ECM cells built to the design I have. I am happy to send people drawings for that cell.

ECM cells are built to FAA fuel cell standards for certified aircraft.

[BLS]

Would i fit? Moore and Fizell were jockey size if I remember.....

Just in case - this thread began in Dec of 2011... That Z-12 is gone and finally being restored as reported here in the update by DLRacing.

I don't see many Z-12's for sale. The later Citation FV's are more readily available I believe.

As I recall Wayne Moore was not very tall, but pretty stocky.

And fast.

[DLRacing]

I would be curious as to what you consider an engineering mistake.

If you have one of the very first Z12, you might have something to fix but after that issue was fixed, the Z12 finished second at the run offs that year and then had 2 back to back national for a total of 4 championships over 6 years. The fix was designed by Ed Zink, I have the original sketch he made.

I'm not knocking your work Mr. Lathrop.
The mistakes are the ones after the car was originally built and passed down through the years. In a couple places the bracing was cut out and left out, fuel cell is wrong, the upper firewall brace is butchered,etc. Just stripping down bare and starting over. Any advise would be greatly appreciated. Original plans would be great so I can put it back the way it was built. I absolutely love the amount of room to have a custom fuel cell built leaving tons of driver room. It also looks like to have the lowest center of gravity of any car I've seen in 8 years of Vintage racing. I think it shall be a great car once restored! Garrett Van Camp thinks so also.
I'll post pics as progress is made.

[DLRacing]

Hello Mr.Lathrop,

Pictures as promised. Ran at Gingerman two weeks ago. Broke the a front torsion spring during second practice when I hit a large coil spring spacer someone dropped in the previous session. Reset the front toe to 1/8” in to run qualifying. Qualified 9th on crap tires and flat front suspension. Put on a set of 54 durometer tires and voluntarily gridded at the rear the following races to stay away from others until I get the handling figured out. This car is different in the corners than a z-bar suspension, in a good way. I’ve driven Z-4, Kellison, Autodynamics, Lynx A and Lynx B and never had a car that I could stuff in a corner flat on the floor on entry thru exit, and stick like this. All this with a broken front torsion, brand new carb I built, a rebuilt back up turd motor (high drag Chinese rings), and later to discover there is supposed to be a horizontal shock on the rear suspension. The front was so bad the frame scraped on corner entry. Turned a 1:57 fast lap measured against the number two and three runners posting a 1:53 and 1:54. Running the car at 85% with these problems and turning a decent time, I am flat out impressed!

I need your help with setup as no one else knows this car better than you. Here is the current numbers; FL camber 2.85 degrees, FR camber 3.2 degrees, front toe 1/8” in, rear toe is 1/32” toe in each side, and rear camber is 2.8 degrees right and left, droop is 0 degrees with rear in the air, no horizontal rear shock. I know front camber is overboard but holly crap does this car corner stick. What is your prescribed rear spring rate and shock ratio?
[SIZE=4] Also you once mentioned a front engine mount design that works. The front mount came loose in the last 4 laps of the feature and returned the usual chucking condition. The correct horizontal rear shock valve value is also what I need to fab the trans mount horizontal bracket and make this right.

Again, I am flat out impressed. Can’t wait to get the set up right and install my the new low parasitic drag mill. Also, would be nice to have a nose that hasn’t been patched a million times and now weighs 15 lbs. Is it a good idea to leave it until near final car balance is made? I mean, I did shave 36 lbs off the original car weight already.

There is nothing wrong with the four link front steering as has been ridiculed by a certain few of the Lynx religion. Boy I want to show them it works. There was absolutely NO tire chucking on corner exit. I reset all tie rods dead level with suspension loaded to equally balance TOT. I suspect the result is there is no tie rod loaded deflection. I presume the two link system fosters some sort of unloading resulting in a harmonic oscillation ( tire wobble on exit ). Anyways I love it. [/SIZE]

Your advise is appreciated and shall be applied exactly per instruction. I have a bible in the making for this Z-12 and desire to include your narrative of it’s creation with permission. When I’m long gone the future owner will know all that I am able to pass on about this car’s history and setup. A proper passing of the torch of sorts.

Though just an idiot, I can follow instructions.

Cheers,
Dave