Allowing Mazda motor and sequential transmission into FC

[problemchild]

The bottom line. Lets not worry about branding, BOP nomenclature, future replacement engines, future cars, etc.
We need to fastrack getting those 20-30 existing USF Van Deimen/Elans on track in FC in the immediate future. Bring them in at 99% engine/transmission performance level now.

Nothing would be better for the immediate future of the class than having the Pintos, Zetecs, and MZR/USFs racing together in one class on a spec tire that is common to every Regional, National, Majors, SuperTour, or Pro Series event in the country. Period!

[kea]

I'm sure Keith will chime in to verify but with the update to the Pinto engine rules and Zetec weights the 50 lb. addition is gone (min weight is 1210 in GLC too)

The group decided to give the SCCA weights a try this season.
With the newer Pinto build rules in mind, we hope the Zetec power advantage has been minimized. So far, it's still not clear, but I think those in the group with Pinto's (many still in the older build configuration) feel they have a shot to be competitive. Thus they support the series.

On that note, many times it depends on the track and/or the competitiveness of the driver.
This year for our Grattan Raceway event, the fastest in the GLC group both days, was a 89 Reynard CFC, followed by a 97 Van Diemen (Pinto), then a 2000 Zetec. One tenth difference between each.
This was an event where everyone had someone to race against, all down the order and all had a great time.

Still, we don't need another engine that SCCA tech wouldn't know how to handle (If nothing else, I don't think they would know where to start to check on ECU mapping,).

[reidhazelton]

It's not semantics, it's following the required process of how to get this done. If you take a USF car, pull the MZR and put in a Zetec, it's a legal FC. To allow USF cars, the MZR must be approved and added to the rulebook. You don't need to formulate a BOP for an engine and transmission package. The transmission is already allowed, so it's irrelevant in that equation.

Step 1. Someone needs to ask QuickSilver/Elite for a proven and verified map that is equal to (or as Greg said, 99%) of a Zetec.

Step 2. Write a letter to the CRB asking to include the MZR in FC with the specified map and a letter from QS/Elite saying it is equal to the Zetecs they build. Include dyno results for each. (Best practice would be to do what I did with the FF spec tire - get a whole mess of people to write to hte CRB. Numbers matter. Organize that letter writing campaign on Apexspeed.)

Step 3. Be told "Thank you for your input" or be accepted. My guess is at this point, it would be successful.

My guess, being four years since the first proposal to allow the USF car as a whole, this will be a much easier sell now than when gearbox was allowed. The gearbox didn't grow the class - no one went out and put a JFR in a citation or other chassis. Keeping the MZR out made no sense then, and it doesn't now.

So, who wants to do it?

[BeerBudgetRacing]

Still, we don't need another engine that SCCA tech wouldn't know how to handle (If nothing else, I don't think they would know where to start to check on ECU mapping,).

As proven by the map issues at the runoffs. I'm not sure anyone's maps have been checked at a SuperTour. Just the Runoffs.

This is why I proposed a sealed/locked ECU. MZR Engine -> Seal on ECU.

And frankly there is a lot of trust we need to have in each other to be compliant.

[BeerBudgetRacing]

The gearbox didn't grow the class - no one went out and put a JFR in a citation or other chassis.

Is anyone running a JFR in FC? I'm curious because the advantage I see is switching to a push-pull cable for shifting and removing that steel rod from my side ! And reducing missed shifts. Not a lot of room for some of us...

[BeerBudgetRacing]

So, who wants to do it?

I think the first step is for someone to talk to Elite and QS about the map (get them both to agree on one).
They can provide the documentation needed.

Then start a draft letter thread and after a couple revisions we can submit them.

[Lyngengr]

Still, we don't need another engine that SCCA tech wouldn't know how to handle (If nothing else, I don't think they would know where to start to check on ECU mapping,).

It is not difficult to check the maps on a Pectel or PE3 ECU. With the Pectel, you need a Win 7 or older computer because the Pectel software won't run on a newer machine. The PE3 software will run on modern computers, but as discovered at the Runoffs, the exact same version of software needs to be used to check it.

If you can check the maps, then you can change those as well. Therein lies the problem for SCCA Tech. There aren't enough people well versed in how to check the maps, and that needs to be addressed if we try to get engine parity using ECU restrictions.

[Mickey5x]

Any thoughts on how USAC will impact the national series? Also, very happy to see Levi Jones running the Indy Lights program. He is a racer and will get the job done.

[alangbaker]

It is not difficult to check the maps on a Pectel or PE3 ECU. With the Pectel, you need a Win 7 or older computer because the Pectel software won't run on a newer machine. The PE3 software will run on modern computers, but as discovered at the Runoffs, the exact same version of software needs to be used to check it.

If you can check the maps, then you can change those as well. Therein lies the problem for SCCA Tech. There aren't enough people well versed in how to check the maps, and that needs to be addressed if we try to get engine parity using ECU restrictions.

Not trying to start an argument, but the ability to read something does not guarantee the ability to change it; not in general.

[Pi_guy]

It is not difficult to check the maps on a Pectel or PE3 ECU. With the Pectel, you need a Win 7 or older computer because the Pectel software won't run on a newer machine. The PE3 software will run on modern computers, but as discovered at the Runoffs, the exact same version of software needs to be used to check it.

If you can check the maps, then you can change those as well. Therein lies the problem for SCCA Tech. There aren't enough people well versed in how to check the maps, and that needs to be addressed if we try to get engine parity using ECU restrictions.

Don't think the problem was changing the map that was loaded, the issue was loading a map, then running on that map but not saving the map. When you turned off power you reverted to the loaded in memory map.

[mark defer]

So when is this thing, [allowing the Mazda powered cars into FC] going to happen? It appears that there are already Mazda powered cars registering and running in FC. The SCCA scrutineers are clueless and not even noticing. I don't blame them because they have what, 25-30 classes and how many engine configurations to monitor? I mean I want the Mazda cars included but not covertly. Lets make it official and welcome them in. How many Mazdas are entered in Sebring next week as FCs and not FXs to run in the Baytos mini series? Let's get this done.

[Rick Kirchner]

Would that not make the new FM a FC?

[BrianT1]

Would that not make the new FM a FC?

Nope, because that car does not conform the the build specs of what an FC is. Bigger wheels and tires, Wider pods, wider diffuser etc.

That car is kind of cool but its a red headed step child as far as car class. Probably will be a FX.

Brian

[S Lathrop]

Remember that FC is a formula car class. That means that you can run any car you want in FC as long as it meets the rules outlined in the GCR. The FC rules in the GCR define what is legal FC.

The USF2000 car is very similar to a FC but it is not built to the FC rules. It is a spec car. with a very specific set of rules and it is also defined as being built by a single source.

I believe that the Mazda engine is a bit more attractive than the FC options for engines. If the Mazda engine was to be allowed into FC, I think it would be the mush have power plant.

[Bob Wright]

So... the USF car is a Van Diemen (or Elan DP08 built to standard late model RF specs) no different than any VD built 2001 or later with a MZR motor and possibly a Hewland JL 5 speed gearbox (there are a number of them still with LD200s).

Parts are completely compatible with any late model Zetec or Pinto VD. In reality, the USF cars don't have any of the wizzy diffusers, wings or other developmental parts that have evolved over the years allowed in the FC class.

Is the motor better? That's open to discussion, but it is a newer design. Does it have more HP in FX or FRP configuration? NO, it's been mapped and restricted to the same dyno graph that a Zetec has and less than the currently produced Pintos. Remember, the Zetec is a timed-out motor and no parts are currently being manufactured by Ford, so everything has to be used, old inventory or aftermarket. The MZR is not timed out yet and crate motors are still available.

The car fits FC rules with the sole exception of the motor and the 5th gear in the gearbox, otherwise completely compatible with the current FC rule book. That the MZR would become the 'must have motor' in my opinion is a red herring and not accurate.

[S Lathrop]

So... the USF car is a Van Diemen (or Elan DP08 built to standard late model RF specs) no different than any VD built 2001 or later with a MZR motor and possibly a Hewland JL 5 speed gearbox (there are a number of them still with LD200s).

Parts are completely compatible with any late model Zetec or Pinto VD. In reality, the USF cars don't have any of the wizzy diffusers, wings or other developmental parts that have evolved over the years allowed in the FC class.

Is the motor better? That's open to discussion, but it is a newer design. Does it have more HP in FX or FRP configuration? NO, it's been mapped and restricted to the same dyno graph that a Zetec has and less than the currently produced Pintos. Remember, the Zetec is a timed-out motor and no parts are currently being manufactured by Ford, so everything has to be used, old inventory or aftermarket. The MZR is not timed out yet and crate motors are still available.

The car fits FC rules with the sole exception of the motor and the 5th gear in the gearbox, otherwise completely compatible with the current FC rule book. That the MZR would become the 'must have motor' in my opinion is a red herring and not accurate.

I would get excited about building a Citation with the MZR motor. Is that what you want to see for the FRP series?

[Rick Kirchner]

Nope, because that car does not conform the the build specs of what an FC is. Bigger wheels and tires, Wider pods, wider diffuser etc.

That car is kind of cool but its a red headed step child as far as car class. Probably will be a FX.

Brian

Easily fixed though. At least some potential competition for those selling spectrums....

[Chris Livengood]

The SCCA has no vested interest in allowing FC to grow. You can tell by the way that it is.

As for the MZR Citation, bring it on. It would be sad and hilarious to watch somebody bring a $120k car to a field of eight $20k Van Diemens. Quite the statement that would be. A real notch in the belt.

[sccadsr31]

The USF2000/MZR car has been proposed for inclusion in Formula Continental on numerous occasions. The FSRAC recently addressed this issue in its response to letter #31756 which appears in the January 2022 edition of Fastracks that can be found here:

https://cdn.connectsites.net/user_fi...pdf?1640104681

[BeerBudgetRacing]

The USF2000/MZR car has been proposed for inclusion in Formula Continental on numerous occasions. The FSRAC recently addressed this issue in its response to letter #31756 which appears in the January 2022 edition of Fastracks that can be found here:

https://cdn.connectsites.net/user_fi...pdf?1640104681

So, what are they really saying?

They are now concerned with keeping car counts in fx?
Now concerned about different engines and bop?

What I read says they will never approve another engine in fc. One way to eventually kill the class.

[2BWise]

What I read says they will never approve another engine in fc. One way to eventually kill the class.

I think the car counts in Formula Vee would disagree with this statement.

[Bob Wright]

Hi, Steve- We would welcome a MZR Citation in the FRP F2000 class with open arms.

[S Lathrop]

Hi, Steve- We would welcome a MZR Citation in the FRP F2000 class with open arms.

What about the Eco Boost Ford?

[mark defer]

Reading Bob and Steve exchange comments is like watching a tennis match.

[Chris Livengood]

Not really. The Ecoboost package is silliness, nobody has proposed it because there aren’t a bunch useless Ecoboost cars sitting around.

The USF package situation is pretty straightforward. The transmission is a heavy and expensive package, which isn’t particularly desirable. The cars exist and are cheap. Connect the dots.

[BeerBudgetRacing]

Not really. The Ecoboost package is silliness, nobody has proposed it because there aren’t a bunch useless Ecoboost cars sitting around.

I think he was being facetious. His point being - if the MZR then why not something else.
You point is correct. The MZR is the only engine packaged in one of these chassis.

But it's clear - for SCCA these cars will need to re-engine to play.

[BeerBudgetRacing]

I think the car counts in Formula Vee would disagree with this statement.

Point taken. But FV is "unique" ? And if I understand correctly those engines are still being made in back alleys in Brazil.

[Bob Wright]

Well...the Ecoboost is a turbo IIRC so it's a bit different. I have advocated a new motor that isn't timed out in the class for years. How about a Ford Sigma? SCCA knows all about them (the motor is in the SRF Gen 3) and it bolts into a VD or Spectrum or whatever.

At the end of the day, if it's a modern fuel injected, ECU driven motor, we can probably equalize it.

[douglap1]

Yeah - I think we are going to all end up in FX together one day.

At least maybe the car counts will be enough to keep us from having to run with FV's

So, what are they really saying?

They are now concerned with keeping car counts in fx?
Now concerned about different engines and bop?

What I read says they will never approve another engine in fc. One way to eventually kill the class.

[Chris Livengood]

Take note on how the SCCA has no issue updating the engines in the classes it owns.

FC is the battered wife and the SCCA is the abusive husband. Though the SCCA seems to be a wife battering polygamist hell bent on running most non-owned open wheel categories into the ground.

[kea]

Well...the Ecoboost is a turbo IIRC so it's a bit different. I have advocated a new motor that isn't timed out in the class for years. How about a Ford Sigma? SCCA knows all about them (the motor is in the SRF Gen 3) and it bolts into a VD or Spectrum or whatever.

At the end of the day, if it's a modern fuel injected, ECU driven motor, we can probably equalize it.

As I tried to explain to SCCA before (Fit engine in F/Ford), the automotive manufactures basically plan on an engine (unchanged) for five years. After that, due to emissions, mileage, designs or materials, a change is expected. Sometimes not great, but some change. That is why none of the newer crop that have been available, were never designed to be rebuilt. At least not on the scale of the FF 1600, F2000 (Pinto), small block Chevy, F/fst 1600, etc. So, expecting to find a new engine that won't be timed out for more then a short number of years, is not going to happen.

[CheckeredFlag]

From my viewpoint, Mazda stills seems very keen on the internal combustion engine (ICE). A lot of manufacturers have made it publicly clear that their future is with electric vehicles (EV). A recent statement from Ford believing that the ICE will still be relevant in rural communities seems to imply that they will still be involved in ICE's for a while.

The 2021 PRI trade show in Indy seemed to want everyone to sign on to a petition to save racing, which I took to believe would be a lobbying effort with Congress not to completely kill off the ICE.

I guess what I'm saying is that everyone with an ICE, not just the FC's, may be looking a grim future 10 years down the road.

[Rick Kirchner]

[QUOTE=CheckeredFlag;635005]
The 2021 PRI trade show in Indy seemed to want everyone to sign on to a petition to save racing, which I took to believe would be a lobbying effort with Congress not to completely kill off the ICE.
/QUOTE]

Congress won't kill off internal combustion for many, many years, if ever. But they could kill a lot of racing by making it so you can never modify an emissions engine. That's sort of been hanging over SEMAs head for a number of years.

[Rick Kirchner]

As I tried to explain to SCCA before (Fit engine in F/Ford), the automotive manufactures basically plan on an engine (unchanged) for five years. After that, due to emissions, mileage, designs or materials, a change is expected. Sometimes not great, but some change. That is why none of the newer crop that have been available, were never designed to be rebuilt. At least not on the scale of the FF 1600, F2000 (Pinto), small block Chevy, F/fst 1600, etc. So, expecting to find a new engine that won't be timed out for more then a short number of years, is not going to happen.

Software makes it possible and profitable to optimize around a new set of constraints every few years. Without CAD and simulation, it would be a whole different ballgame.

Several threads ago on a similar topic I broached the subject of an engine designed specifically for the small-bore ladder based on a single block and a family of components for different displacements/outputs. Sort of like an Offenhauser or the Autocraft/Pauter version of the VW. You can put anybody's name on the valve cover...

Design it to be modular and designed with modern materials and component sizes to maximize engine life at a given power level, as opposed to trying to make the 50s/60s/70s stuff work at 3x design stress. Start with the bigger outputs and then de-rate as oppose to the craziness of trying to get 300hp out of a Kent based 2L.....

Everything in our motors now is aftermarket or custom anyway, with the exception of crank, block, and heads. Modern manufacturing techniques are making this a lot more feasible.

The Navy has been making unobtainium submarine valves (big, proprietary and out of production) by scanning and 3d printing the negative in a special sand with a binder, then sending the mold to a specialty foundry. True, it's the navy with a lot of money, but it's faster and much cheaper than trying to cut the things out of a huge brass or stainless billet.

Or, just keep doing the same things over and over again and expect a different result? Maybe one more engine change is all our sport has left in it.

Hey - maybe enterprises can sell them! Yeah, that's the ticket....

[BeerBudgetRacing]

The 2021 PRI trade show in Indy seemed to want everyone to sign on to a petition to save racing, which I took to believe would be a lobbying effort with Congress not to completely kill off the ICE.

Congress won't kill off internal combustion for many, many years, if ever. But they could kill a lot of racing by making it so you can never modify an emissions engine. That's sort of been hanging over SEMAs head for a number of years.

IIRC the issue was/is that CARB is pressuring the EPA to enforce a law that ALREADY exists. The Federal Law says you cannot change/remove emissions control PERIOD. Everyone has always interpreted that as 'on highway operated vehicles'. But that isn't what is says. CARB's position is that the laws also apply to things other than cars (law mowers, generators, etc.) since CARB regulates those things as well.

What seems to be an ulterior motive is to hurt the after market industry in Cali. Apparently they are big on auditing shipments of 'illegal in Cali' parts and the CARB approval process is nearly impossible. Businesses are leaving the state and thriving.


As for killing the ICE, I doubt that'll happen. Even CARB doesn't want that. They lose all their purpose and power if there is nothing left for them to regulate.

[Rick Kirchner]

That's an interesting point - would take some research to figure out if it's part of statute or if it is part of the policy structure.

Really tough to police. You can buy a short block with no emission controls as a replacement part, because all the emission controls are bolt-on. So technically you could buy a 2021 Camaro for one of the Trans-am classes, buy a short block and build the motor up on that. You haven't touched the emission controls, the fuel system and engine still exist unmodified, just not in that chassis - which may or may not have a VIN on it anymore....

Heck, you could probably buy a body in white, or all the sheet metal and weld it together.

My guess is that someone will have to come up with race-specific legislation or a similar court ruling or the agencies will remain pretty toothless off-highway.

CARB though, they sure make it hard to buy anything but parts.

[Matt Clark]

Watching this from a distance with nothing to gain or lose, and as a possible future FC person that sees FRP weekends run very successfully, it would be & is easy to balance this all out. You cannot expect a class to grow if you cannot buy a "crate" engine somewhere, both for ease of procurement & cost.
Will a Mazda start winning races? Sure... because many fast guys that win anyway would switch, just like in FF (that I know is a hot fight still).

I think the car counts in Formula Vee would disagree with this statement.

Point taken. But FV is "unique" ? And if I understand correctly those engines are still being made in back alleys in Brazil.

The parts we use in FV are not the ones that some countries still make. And the parts we can use from them, we generally avoid due to quality issues. Engine parts & the ability for us to simply call a builder & buy an engine is a real problem right now. And our National FV engine prices would shock you compared to a FC engine.
Half the cars for sale right now are rollers, because people are not letting go of engines. Some people are even buying complete car packages just for the motors. Fields are certainly growing again & things look good... but we would be even bigger the past year & into 2022 if more engines were available.

[kea]

You cannot expect a class to grow if you cannot buy a "crate" engine somewhere, both for ease of procurement & cost..

I hate to burst your bubble, but no one runs a "crate" engine. It will always take some Fixin'. Maybe an Intake manifold, flywheel/clutch assembly, dry-sump oil pan and pump, plus a number of other tweeks I haven't thought of.

[Bob Wright]

Umm...The Van Diemen MZR car (Number 95) that won the runoffs in FX had a crate motor in it. My car (number 90) that held the PIRC F2000 track record from 2020 to 2021 (with Max Esterson) was a crate motor. Neither those nor the Zetecs I've had in the past were anything but crate motors. Yes, the rules allow tweaking to a small degree and many people avail themselves, but in my opinion, it's not necessary. The driver is a much, much bigger variable.

[Matt Clark]

I hate to burst your bubble, but no one runs a "crate" engine. It will always take some Fixin'. Maybe an Intake manifold, flywheel/clutch assembly, dry-sump oil pan and pump, plus a number of other tweeks I haven't thought of.

While Bob did add to it with his own experience doing it, I will clarify that I had it in quotes because I mainly meant an engine you can buy new somewhere as a longblock or whatever... not rely on junkyard salvaging for the entire thing. Whether or not you want to then send it to a pro builder or do some tweaks yourself is up to you, but at least "new" engines need to be available. Bolting on some race-specific accessories is not a big deal.

I personally think, but understand it would see a massive pushback, that almost any engine that is close to the rules, that can be configured & sorted correctly, should be allowed. Ford Duratec, Honda K20, etc. As someone else pointed out above... this is a Formula class, so if it can be made to meet parameters, then have at it. There might even be a very small chance at some manufacturer attention at that point.