F2000 Series Summit Pt Qualifyiing

[Bob Wright]

Finally found a internet connection...

Under cloudy skies and cool temperatures the cars were on track for 3 sessions; 2 practice and qualifying for Saturday's race at 5pm. Qualifying for Sunday's race will take place Saturday at 10:45am.

1 Chris Fahan 1:12.803
2 Rob Nicholas 1:13.026
3 Paul Rieffle 1:13.272
4 Mike Andersen 1:13.274
5 Chas Shaffer 1:13.542
6 Jesse Yorio 1:13.674
7 Alan Guibord jr 1:14.143 FC Zetec
8 Mike Mazziotti 1:14.362
9 Bob Wright 1:14.397 FC Zetec
10 Tom Fatur 1:14.495
11* Matt McDonough 1:12.528 (Penalized 10 places by Chief Steward) Pro Zetec
12 Scott Gesford 1:15.128
13 Jeff McCusker 1:15369 FC Zetec
14 John Levy 1:15.749
15 John Dole 1:15.882
16 Craig Clawson 1:16.781
17 Alan Guibord sr 1:17.162 FC Zetec

There were no on track incidents during any of the sessions other than a few spins. Matt was penalized for non spec fuel (no, it wasn't C44- I think someone put av gas normally used in testing in the car by mistake.). Craig Clawson lost a motor in qualifying, but should have his spare in the car before Sunday's qualifying session this morning.

More later

[stonebridge20]

With times that tight and "Money" Matt dropped to mid pack,...It looks like a barn burner of a race! Thanks for the update Bob. Keep them comming!

Agnif

[ZEKESPEED]

Thanks for the update

[Michael Rand]

Summit Point report from Saturday May 20
Quite a day definately, for many reasons.
This mornings qualifying for Sundays race finds Matt M on the pole again, this time with no non-spec fuel issue, at 1.12.623 from Chris Fahan at 1.13.169.
A full half second ? In this group ? What's up with that ?
Rob Nicholas in 3rd at 1.13.433, then Mike Andersen with a 1.13.506, then Rieffle on 1.13.605, Yorio, Shaffer, Wright, Guibord Jr, Gesford, Fatur, McCusker, Mazziotti, Dole, Levy, and Guibord Sr.
Craig Clawson and crew are thrashing changing a motor and will not qualify for Sundays race starting at the back of the field.
Saturday's afternoon has race 3 of the Series with Fahan and Nicholas on the front row followed by Rieffle and Andersen, Shaffer and Yorio, Guibord Jr and Mazziotti, Wright and Fatur, McDonough with his 10 grid position penalty for non-spec fuel in qualiying alongside Gesford, then McCusker and Levy, Dole and Guibord Sr.
Wright had problems getting underway and started last.
Fahan lead at the start and for the initial 10 laps. Then the fired up McDonough arrived on the scene at the sharp end and went into the lead at half distance. Matt checked out, making the most of the additional grip available from the Pro Spec 8"&10" rim/tire combination.
Matt drove really well, not to say everyone else didn't, he made the most of the package he was running and dominated the race winning by 10 seconds with a fast lap a full second better than Fahan in second.
Controversy is just around the next turn.....
The last lap saw a podium position change when Mike Andersen passed a slowing Chas Shaffer so the podium as McDonough on the top step, Fahan in 2nd, and Andersen in 3rd followed by Shaffer, Mazziotti, Guibord Jr, Fatur, Nicholas battling car damage from contact, Wright, Gesford, McCusker, Dole, Levy and Guibord Sr.
Jesse Yorio dropped out with fuel starvation and Paul Rieffle with contact damage.
Clawson and crew lost the time battle and did not make the start.
Following the race series officials spent many hours , burned many cell phone minutes, angered some, pleased others, but in the end announced that Matt McDonoughs clear grip advantage, through the increased 2" of contact patch per corner, would be negated by having him run the FC spec 6"&8" rim/tire package at least in Sundays warmup. While Matts team was, shall we say, less than pleased, Matt is game to give it a shot.
Future developments could include different compound Hankooks for the 8"&10" package, revised Zetec restrictor and/or ecu mapping, or a requirement for notarized 3am bedtime and a specified BAC. That's a joke kids, get a sense of humor !!!!
Sunday will be interesting for sure, but there is unlikely to be an update before Monday am. Well, maybe a quickie race result Sunday afternoon before all get on the road home Sunday pm.
There is tire testing planned already between Summit and Watkins Glen's next round on June 9-11 to further equalize the various packages available to competitors.
Stand by, the process continues.....
Hey PW, Ruth says hi......

[stonebridge20]

Thanks for the update Mike. I guess the 22% more tire on the ground is just a bit much. I'm surprised the 8's and 10's made it to the 3rd round of the series. I thought they should have been gone after the first race.

Agnif

[Michael Rand]

We tried dealing with the issue first with a smalller restrictor trying to leave the wheel/tire package alone. That clearly didn't work. We have not given up with that route, hence the tire testing in the next few weeks to try different compounds to see if the additional footprint can be evened out with the smaller tires through decreasing the grip via harder compounding.
Short term, we have "solved" the issue for today anyway by putting Matt on the same tires as everyone else. In a sense we are handicapping Matt as the rest of the car is still in Pro Spec, ie gears, shocks, etc.
It is a steep learning curve we are on admittedly but we promised all competitors a level playing field and we will keep adjusting things until the majority are happy. We all know it is impossible to make everyone happy. Yesterday was Matts turn, today might well be someone elses. We'll know by noon.

[stonebridge20]

Mike, I applaud you and the rest of the staff for getting this series together. It's a great concept of having a series that will put three different "versions" of F/2000 cars on track in a pro format. I'm not sure putting the "pro spec" 2000's on 6's and 8's is the thing to do if you want to see some cross over from that series. I think it should be done with tire compounds. If the "other pro" series guys have to run a different size tire than they have been running, you probably wont get the cross over your looking for.
20 years of watching this class, I know who's fast and who isn't. The 8's and 10's at the same compound as the 6's and 8's are just too much of an overdog.

Agnif

[Michael Rand]

You are absolutely correct Mike, we agree, but had no other compound tires available at Summit. We are setting up tire and restrictor testing before Watkins Glen.

We feel it is important to let Zetecs run on 8&10's as long as there is no advantage and are confident Hankook can help us make that happen.


As the results below clearly show, putting Matt on 6&8" wheels/tires made less than no difference.
The search continues, but we hope it is obvious to all that we are dedicated to the concept and making every effort to get it right.

A brief rundown of finishing order from Sundays race at Summit Point, May 21.

McDonough, on the above mentioned 6&8" rim/tire package, well, it seems we really pissed him off and he dominated.
Finishing order below, more report and news in a day or so.

1. Matt McDonough, Restricted Zetec
2. Mike Andersen, Ointo
3. Paul Rieffle, Pinto
4. Chris Fahan, Pinto
5. Robert Wright, Restricted Zetec
6. Jeff McCusker, Restricted Zetec
7. Rob Nicholas, Pinto
8. Michael Mazziotti, Pinto
9. Scott Gesford, Pinto
10. Craig Clawson, Pinto with a special award for perseverance, Craig, Tommy, and Dick were put through the wringer this weekend, truely busted their butts to get the motor ancilliaries changes and their old motor in and running, many dramas, when the fresh one had major issues on Saturday. Started last Sunday, excellent drive and effort.
11. Alan Guibord Jr, Restricted Zetec
12. John Dole, Pinto
13. John Levy, Pinto
14. Jesse Yorio, Pinto another story here, in the full report soon
15. Alan Guibord Sr, Restricted Zetec
DNF Chas Shaffer, nose box attachment failure
DNF Tom Fatur, electrical

Many stories to tell, lap times to show, qualifying to discuss, etc etc.
It seems we have yet to be able to post qualifying and race results on our website, bear with us. Just as we make the effort to equalize the different spec cars we seem to be struggling to get results posted quickly. This posting is the limit of my internet ability so others will need to make it happen.

[Bob Wright]

We'll figure out how to get the results on the web site sooner or later. Here's Race 2 qualifying and results with lap times:

Race 2 Qualifying:

McDonough 1:12.623
Fahan 1:13.169
Nicholas 1:13.433
Andersen 1:13.506
Rieffle 1:13.506
Yorio 1:14.139
Shaffer 1:14.198
Wright 1:14.388
Guibord,jr 1:14.441
Gesford 1:14.587
Fatur 1:14.904
McCusker 1:15.064
Mazziotti 1:15.115
Dole 1:15.336
Levy 1:15.386
Guibord, sr 1:18.602

Race 2 Results:

McDonough 1:12.925
Andersen 1:14.140
Rieffle 1:14.317
Fahan 1:14.361
Wright 1:14.333
McCusker 1:14.509
Nicholas 1:13.801
Mazziotti 1:14.987
Gesford 1:15.033
Clawson 1:15.350
Guibord,jr 1:15.380
Dole 1:14.777
Levy 1:16.026
Yorio 1:14.701 21 laps
Guibord,sr 1:17.731 21 laps
Shaffer 1:15.002 4 laps
Fatur 1:20.738 2 laps

[DFR Dave Freitas]

From an outsider looking in, it would seem that the track for race 2 was about a 1/2 second off compared to the qua. 2 track, yet Matt went the basically the same speed. I would think that means the small wheels and tires had the advantage, not the other way around. What did everyone at the track think about this after the race 2 results?

[Matt M.]

First. I need to thank the team....GTP. "Mean" Dean Meeks on the keyboard and "Stinky" Bill Stephens on drums (trust me, the dude can beat it). "The wizard" was on a rotary vacation someplace in tropical Ohio for the weekend - but through modern technology we were constantly confirming changes via phone - until my battery died late Saturday night.....

I will try to be brief

At first, I approached the weekend very care free. Frankly, I didn't think I had a chance - I think thats reflected in the first 2 practice times (I was 6th both times). Afternoon qualifying I figured to go quicker - but thought everyone would... I got caught up with somebody who felt a need to "impede" my progress deliberatley......Since it was qualifying - it really got me irritated. That is what flipped the switch in me..... From that point on - it was my alter ego......Not anything that was to follow....

The Av-gas thing was unfortunate - a mistake by us and the penalty was correct (now I have the distinction as first with that too). Race 1 was pretty much a typical deal - I've seen more carnage in the other series. But I took advantage of people/carnage and made some high risk passes....Caught and passed Mr Fahan. Then the debate began.

Its unfortunate that up to this point I have been the only full Pro spec car to show up - kind of leaves me out on a limb with not much to bargain with. So we talked and finally all agreed to a change until we can do some private tests... The team did a fantastic job of converting the car over. We guessed on some changes and I tried the morning warmup. The car was fine - other than a slight push (that everyone had complained about).

Everyone asks if the tires were a big change.... The only thing I noticed was the breaking. You can't just stomp on the brakes - not so much the braking points were different - I found in race 2 - I could go as deep - but I couldn't apply the same peddle pressure. The trade off between entire wheel weight and contact patch seems very close...... I haven't looked at the data - but cornering was just a little different.... again - the way its driven.. Theres a big contact patch - but the weight is such you don't want it breaking loose. With the small tire in tight turns - you rotate the car under power - it feels like the tire is raising circumference - like what you see in a dragster burn out... Kind of a funny feeling but you have to trust it (Dan Wheldon actually explained that style to me.....).

I was happy to get into the 12's on the skinny tires - We didn't have enough anti roll in the car to go faster (no test time) - it was rolling over on the exit of the fast turns......my estimate is, we would have at least done the same time if not faster, as fat tires. And at least with that combination - there were 4-5 similar cars running.....

More changes will come for sure... But its very very close now (well, in my mind anyway )

I hope there are 1-2 others that decide to stop sitting on the fence and sign up for Watkins Glen. I've been there many times - but I've never driven on the track..... Should be almost as big a thrill as standing on the podium with Brian Redman and Vic Elford (Man, THAT was cool).

PS - Anybody know if an in car camera can be rented? (No, I didn't "see" anything - just think it would be cool to share the races on the net)

[JByers]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the West coast series run the same formula as the East coast? If so why don't we hear the same complaints?

[Bob Wright]

I'll try to answer that...BTW Matt was a great sport with our "changes in mid stream" and he still kicked butt.

The Pacific Series Zetecs run a hard (C70) compound Hankook, and a 1.275" restrictor (the current SCCA club spec for FC Zetecs). Our series has both the FC Zetecs-6/8 rims and Pro cars-8/10 rims on the same map as the Pacific Series, but a 1.315" restrictor, and everyone on the same compound tires (softer C90).

There have been very few Pintos running in the Pacific Series this year so there aren't the comparisons we're getting on the east coast.

With two weekends under our belt we're beginning to see what the differences are between the wheel sizes and motors under variable conditions. It's a work in progress that we recognize we have to solidify very soon without knocking one or another car out of the box.

[Chas Shaffer]

It's worth mentioning that the 1.275" restrictor and Pacific Coast mapping currently legal in SCCA Club racing is not the restrictor or mapping presented to the Comp Board in the proposal by the competitors. After minimal and questionable early season testing at Sebring the SCCA changed the restrictor and mapping to give the Zetec more power. I was told by the SCCA that they do not have to post anything in fast track (which of course they didn't).

[Dave Gomberg]

Chas:

The CRB and the Formula/Sports Racing advisory committee are aware of your concerns with regard to the SCCA map. We simply don't have enough data yet to determine if there is or is not a problem, but we are keeping a close watch. If it becomes apparent that an unintended advantage has been gained by the FC Zetec cars, adjustments will be made.

Dave

[Chas Shaffer]

Dave,
I realize Matt was using a slightly larger restrictor this weekend than is legal in SCCA Club racing but 1.2 seconds faster than a three time national champion is a pretty good indication of a potential problem. Especially when by Matt's own admission his car was not setup optimally.

Additionally, if you don't have enough data to make a change now how did you have enough data to make the change back in January?

[Matt M.]

Well, what I meant was.... The 2 different zetec packages were very close.....
I don't think it would have been a problem for me to get a pinto to go that fast. I just can't afford that kind of engine bill.....

Some results are available @
http://www.f2000series.com/f2000-results.htm

Not all the links seem to work - but some info is there.....

I think the series expects to have a final solution by the next race. Kudos to them for working it out.

[Mark H]

I think that the SCCA Zetech is suppose to be slower than the pinto to start with and at a later date come up to speed? Where as the pro racing spec is ment to be equiel from the the get go or as even as different cars can be?

That being said I wonder why more Z cars haven't raced in SCCA events, it seems that yall think that they are quicker?

I don't know any of the drivers in the F2000 but it seems like Matt M is realy having a great season so far, having never been to SP and coming from mid pack on Sat and winning on Sun aginst Charles S and Mike A to name a few,both having extensive experance on this track!
Matt has read the rules and raced within them in a NON SPEC series and used every advantage that he could find to win...can you say Roger Penske?? Why would anyone not try and have the fastest car they could have? Heck when racing our car I will put on the lightest wheels I have not the heaviest, the biggest diffuser I have not the smallest...

Sounds like old time run what ya brung racing not SFR or FM spec racing...Grand-am VS ALMS racing...thats what I like anyhow

[DaveW]

Chas:

The CRB and the Formula/Sports Racing advisory committee are aware of your concerns with regard to the SCCA map. We simply don't have enough data yet to determine if there is or is not a problem, but we are keeping a close watch. If it becomes apparent that an unintended advantage has been gained by the FC Zetec cars, adjustments will be made.

Dave

Why was the adjustment to go to the West-Coast map for National FC Zetec cars done? IMO, this was a major change without, as you, yourself, said above, sufficient data.

One of the major provisions of the Zetec equivalency package for inclusion into FC was to KEEP THE ZETEC ENGINED CARS AT SOMEWHAT OF A DISADVANTAGE until enough VALID (between nationally-competitive top-line cars/teams, say at the June Sprints and/or the Runoffs) data was obtained to bring their performance GRADUALLY up to that of the Pinto-engined cars. This provision was put in there so as to not disenfranchise the vast majority of FC owners/drivers, who still have Pinto-powered cars.

We (SCCA) need to make sure that this very important guideline is not ignored, or the FC class could be harmed more than it is improved!

[Thomas Copeland]

The East Coast series is great for giving this thing so much effort. You seem to be putting much more effort into trying to find a real parity solution than any one else is.

Having ran in the last West Coast event at Buttonwillow and watching the series closely for the last 2 years I have observed a few things.

I don't want to put myself to far out there by commenting too liberally on this topic. But if the SCCA goes with that formula (West Coast F2000 map and restrictor) the Pinto cars will simply get slaughtered. It won't make any difference what tire equation you use. But is it true that the SCCA have actually done this? There has been no official announcement. Nothing like a good rumor to get everybody going!

But if I remember this thing was passed without giving any of us any hard specifics on Zetec engine configuration.

We still haven't seen a Pinto win in any race aganist a Zetec. Parity or no parity formula. (Okay, Matt you can't just let those Pinto's win next time!)

.

[Lee Racing 8]

I'm with DaveW

[Matt M.]

I don't want to put myself to far out there by commenting too liberally

Hey, your not Copeland - who stole Copeland's ID?

Thanks Mark.

[Thomas Copeland]

Matt, see my edit! Now, don't let those Pintos beat you! You can't have me eating my words now that I've gone over to the dark (conservative) side!!

[Dave Gomberg]

Why was the adjustment to go to the West-Coast map for National FC Zetec cars done? IMO, this was a major change without, as you, yourself, said above, sufficient data.

Dave:

You and Chas have misinterpreted what I said - but I'll take the blame for that by not being more clear. Based on early evidence, we decided that the Zetec cars were likely to be at too much of a disadvantage (as much as we don't want the Zetec to be at an advantage, we don't want them to be so disadvantaged as to discourage people from using them). When I said we didn't have enough evidence yet, I meant enough evidence to conclude that we have gone too far in closing the gap between the Pinto and the Zetec. There have only been a few races where Zetecs and Pintos have gone head-to-head and a Zetec has yet to win. The situation at Blackhawk (Pinto first, Zetec second, then others) is difficult to judge because only the first two drivers made the "right" tire choice. We need to see more head-to-head results under better conditions. Also, any results from the east cost Pro series are simply not interesting. The Zetec cars running there are not using the same restrictor plate (it is notably larger) and (I believe) they are not subject to the 50 pound weight penalty.

Let me reiterate: we are watching this carefully and if it turns out that there is a problem, we will take appropriate steps.

Dave

[Dan Andersen]

Although Matt's car certainly appeared to have an advantage over the pinto powered cars at Summit Point, it is my opinion that things are not as far apart as they may seem. I arrived at Summit Point on Sunday morning and only saw race #2 due to my commitments at the Mid-Ohio Star Mazda event the days prior, but what I witnessed should not, in my view, cause huge changes immediately. I applaud both the series and Matt for doing the tire change on Sunday, and I think in the long run, that change is necessary despite it appearing to not have much of an effect at Summit Point. Bigger tires will prove advantageous at certain tracks and in certain conditions (rain) so why not take that possible problem off the table now. Summit Point, I think, is a track that rewards cars with more torque, and it seems that the Zetec powered cars would therefore have an advantage there. At tracks like the Glen, that advantage may disappear-we'll see. Furthermore, Matt's car has been run on radials for quite a while, and the team has pretty good setups for the radial tire. Most other teams are playing a little "catch-up" in that area, but I would expect the Pinto cars th get closer in the future. I can't speak for the other Pinto powered guys, but Mike was working the bugs out of his car (it's not the same one he drove at VIR) which we only acquired shortly before the Summit event. He was not very pleased with the cars performance all weekend, but I am confident he will get it sorted and improve his performance. Mike has only raced at Summit once, back in 1990 in a club Ford PRS in the rain, so he was also learning his way around the place. We hope things will go differently at the Glen. Long story short, I think the tires are a good start, and while more changes may be necessary, I think its still close enough for a pinto to win with the current formula. I've been wrong before, though. Bottom line, its a fun series and we hope more top guys come out and give it a try.
Dan Andersen
Andersen Racing Team

[DaveW]

Dave:

1. You and Chas have misinterpreted what I said -

2. Let me reiterate: we are watching this carefully and if it turns out that there is a problem, we will take appropriate steps.

Dave

1. IMO, I don't think I misinterpreted you. You said SCCA didn't have sufficient data to make a change now, but that is exactly what was done at the beginning of the year - to change to a more powerful map (keeping the 1.275" restrictor) for SCCA National racing based on (as I understand it) the January Florida races/testing and just a few opinions before any significant data was collected in the manner that I noted in my previous post. The changes to bring the Zetec cars up to speed were supposed to be made gradually and conservatively, and, IMO, this was not a conservative step.

2. As you said, it needs to be watched carefully. Whatever was done previously, and whoever did it for whatever reason, that water is now over the dam and we can't get it back, so what we do from here on out is what's important.

[Thomas Copeland]

Can someone clarify just what is the current SCCA equivalency formula for Zetec? I've never seen it spelled out anywhere (even in Fastrak). Only info I've ever gotten is through the grapevine.

Probably be better for all if it wasn't run as some kind of "skunk works" project. Maybe being more public with it and giving out some updates when things change in the formula wouldn't hurt either (doesn't mean you have to tell us every experiment attempted). At least that way we wouldn't be left guessing, wondering, confused, and apprehensive.

[Jim Nash]

Thomas,

Shockingly it's in the 2006 GCR. Begining FCS page 26. No "skunk works" project if you know where to look.

Jim Nash

[Dave Gomberg]

2. As you said, it needs to be watched carefully. Whatever was done previously, and whoever did it for whatever reason, that water is now over the dam and we can't get it back, so what we do from here on out is what's important.

Actually, that's not entirely correct. If we have made a mistake, we can revert to the previous map or create another map between the two. That is something that can be done very quickly (particularly because there are very few cars now running the Zetec in SCCA club racing).

Dave

[DaveW]

Actually, that's not entirely correct. If we have made a mistake, we can revert to the previous map or create another map between the two. That is something that can be done very quickly (particularly because there are very few cars now running the Zetec in SCCA club racing).

Dave

What I was referring to was that, IMO, a step that big should not have been made when a much smaller step (for instance, a compromise map halfway between the west coast and original SCCA maps) could easily have been taken. The resulting problem (perceived or real) is that once a change has been made, it too often (1) causes problems/confusion before it is remedied, and (2) takes a serious effort on the part of the competitors to get it changed back or modified. That's why incremental changes, gradually working up to the final rules, (instead of over-correcting and then having to drop back) were recommended as the desired approach.

However, now that most people involved are aware of the current status, and how some of us (serious Pinto-engined FC competitors) feel about this, we surely can reach a reasonable outcome that preserves the principle of bringing the Zetec cars to full competitive status slowly over a year or two so we don't put the Pinto-engined cars at a disadvantage as we develop the final rules package.

[Thomas Copeland]

Jim, thanks for the pointer. Now I remember! We have a GCR!

Do remember reading this. But when things get changed without them telling anybody....that's fairly secretive. Just like highly fictional "skunk works" that ain't suppose to exist. So, exactly where are we now? Apparently things have changed since the GCR was published. Does seems a bit early in the season to be changing things.

From what I've read in this thread we now have a West Coast F2000 ECU map and the GCR spec'd 1.275" restrictor plate. Is this true?

[DaveW]

For a continuation of the SCCA FC Zetec National ECU spec discussion, see the FC: Rules and Regulations topic, post link: http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/show...ewpost&t=17605

[Chas Shaffer]

Here is the official spec for FC Zetec.

http://www.scca.org/Club/Index.asp?reference=techforms

[RussMcB]

Here is the official spec for FC Zetec.

http://www.scca.org/Club/Index.asp?reference=techforms

Chas, all I see there are two links to files I can't read. Are they files to download/upload into the engine ECU? I'm confused.

[racer xyz]

The only way to assess equivalency is to have the same person drive equally well set up cars running the same chassis configuration and get their input. I say put Matt M, or another "control" driver, in comparable chassis combinations, run several sessions in both, and use the input and times to address equivalency - because it is always possible that Matt could be winning because he is the best driver, not because of his engine and tire combination.

Otherwise, you are comparing apples and oranges. Two examples -

Last year in the Pacific Series, a well driven Pinto was competitive. Both Jesse Yorio (Phoenix pole) and JR Hildebrand (Buttonwillow off-pole) qualified Pintos on the front row. Without those examples, there were continued questions regarding the Pintos' equivalency.

At the 2005 runoffs, Vassmer apparently had the field covered at Mid-Ohio in a FC Pinto. This year in the Cooper Series, he struggled at Mid-Ohio in a Zetec with the same team. is this due to the car or comparable driver skills?

At some point folks are going to have to wean themselves from their Pinto addiction! Otherwise we would still be running flatheads!