Stan wrote:Quite right, Stan. I fat-fingered that one. In any event, anyone considering updating the S2 chassis to use Duratec/MZR power should realize it will require an upgrade to Mark 5 innards.
My Staffs will only accept Mk5 gears.
.jpg)
S2 Proposal
| Author | Comment | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
 Charles Warner |
#221 | |||
|
Posts: 728 10/09/08 03:13:25 |
Charlie Warner
fatto gatto racing |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Charles Warner |
#222 | |||
|
Posts: 729 10/09/08 03:18:55 |
Lola Bruce wrote:Assumed an RT4 as the 1.8 liltre was so fragile they normally wouldn't last more than about an hour if run in anger. The CWP was the weakest link.
Charlie Warner
fatto gatto racing |
|||
|
|
||||
|
wkni |
One more spoon in the pot | #223 | ||
|
Posts: 9 10/25/08 07:42:11 |
I have read the comments on this forum and had conversations with fellow s2 racers at the runoffs this
year concerning the plight and proposed solutions to the s2 dilemma. Since the runoffs, I have thought about this quite
a bit and decided to put my thoughts on paper. I haven't frequented this board much but I own 2 Swift DB2s (which I
plan to continue owning and racing one way or another), so I feel like I have a stake in this matter.
The essence of the problem discussed seems to be: What do we do to increase participation, which would then allow the class to remain alive as a national SCCA class? This presupposes that those involved want it to remain an SCCA national class. I will go on this assumption, although this may not be valid, because I suspect there are a number of vintage racers out there who could care less (except for some vague notion about decreasing the value of their cars). There are still others out there who just want things to be like they were because they don't want to change their cars, or the rules, or anything. That would be fine if we had gobs of participation, but we don't. Therefore, these people are part of the problem, not the solution.
As I see it, the root of the problem is that few people are buying new chassis. This is because there is no incentive to buy a new chassis. Who wants to buy a new chassis with old technology? Nobody. There is a new Lola chassis out there being sold in England with no place to race it in the US (it has a wing). The new Van Dieman chassis is designed for a wing, and is really no improvement over the older chassis without one. I am sorry guys, but you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you are going to reinvigorate the class you are going to have to eventually obsolete some of the older cars, at least for national SCCA competition. That's the way racing is.
So, here is my list of what to do: 1 Let the SCCA enterprises car race in S2 with a 2 liter motor. Thereby, get an immediate (although probably small) boost in participation. So what if it's not a two seater. Make an exception. 2 Allow the Mazda MZR 2lt (or some other modern DOHC 2lt injected motor) with HP around 170, or whatever works well for the engine gurus and will allow the trannys to live. 3 Allow a souped up Pinto with same HP as above. (Or, as an alternative, leave the Pinto alone in a subclass. See below.) 4 Allow a wing. 5 Allow transmission and brake improvement (ie - sequential shift, 5 speeds, etc).
Sound familiar? Yes, it's basically Matt and Tony's proposal plus the enterprises car plus a wing. Now you've got a modern race car with some hope of attracting new participants in the future. And you're letting some currently excluded existing cars in right off the bat. Will it turn some folks off? Sure. So will anything you do. My problem with the previous proposals I have read is that I don't think they go far enough. An interesting alternative to the above, which I would also support, would be the creation of a subclass SS2 within the S2 national class which would run in the same field at the Runoffs. There are some drawbacks and advantages to this from both the racer's perspective and the SCCA's. I think you can connect the dots yourself on those. But it would allow the current S2s a place to compete unchanged, while opening the door to new technology and allowing new chassis a place to compete in SS2 (with wings and more HP). If this route is taken one could make a good case for Mazda support of a pro series, which is the real key to expansion.
So now you're probably asking: why is this guy from Texas with not one but two old Swifts, which may be made obsolete by this, arguing for further outdating his cars? Because: #1 I am a racer, I like to see progress, and I love S2 and would hate to see it die; #2 out here we have to race SCCA in a group with much faster cars with wings and HP advantages: we need to speed up to avoid getting run over by some rookie weekend renter in a formula car (it happens), and #3 frankly, I'm tired of the old Ford Pinto; I want something new and current to play with (and it's hard for me to believe I am the only one).
Walter Knight Knight Racing
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
Lola Bruce |
#224 | |||
|
Posts: 31 10/25/08 18:55:41 |
Please let me clear up an assumtion. My Ralt was an RT5 Super-vee 1600 raced in the pro circut. When Formula Atlantic became Toyota it was uprated to a VW 1835
with uprated brakes and a MK5 geared MK9. It raced for a while with the pros as such and the went back to SCCA. I bought it from an SCCA racer and raced it in
Vintage. I drained the fairly fresh box of the pink muck and put in Mobil1 gear oil. In about two races I has picking up a lot of particules on the magnetic
drain plug. I called Taylor and talked to the main man. He told me that the pink muck was a must at 230hp, and check the back lash. The backlash was huge, I
had checked it at purchase and it was fine. I pulled and inspected the entire transaxle and found the pinion and ring faces pulled away like soft steel. I
rebuilt the transaxle with a new Hewland ring and pinion, put in Redline heavy as instructed and had no more problems. Not my opinion just the way it played
out. .......call Taylor for pro advice.
wkni posted at about the same time as I did. After reading his post I had to add this. Here is one of the silent majority that is the heart and soul of S2000. Read his post carefully, after a little while read it again and leave your own opinion aside. His post is well thought out, from the heart, and crystal in the conclusion.
Last Edited By: Lola Bruce 10/25/08 19:12:23.
Edited 1 time.
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
Colin Feyerabend |
#225 | |||
|
Posts: 211 10/26/08 03:41:35 |
Hoora for common sense. Walter spot on, my only slight reservation would be not to limit the engine to any predetermined bhp,
just go for the maximum you can get from the engine with no modification, this allows max power at zero cost.
I will scream if I hear one more person rattle on about reducing power to save the transmission, we are now in our 5th year at
200bhp using Hewland Mk9 and LD200 gearboxes, its not a problem as its the torque that kills them and we are well below that figure.
My only other comment is I have been at great pains to avoid any association of the new cars with that of a Pro series. The new
cars are plain and simple Sports 2000, they represent the total ethos of S2 which is value for money, fantastic looking real race cars that can be run on a
club racers budget.
I still think allowing the modification of the Pinto is counter productive, its all about getting new chassis out there and
without doubt there will be new chassis NOT bought because the person took the cheaper option of going the Pinto route. There will be a lot of people NOT
buying new cars because they are no quicker than a modified Pinto, which is a 40 year old engine!
If you leave the Pinto cars alone, you will only loose a few cars but you will gain a lot more of the late cars converting to
Duratec/MZR and a lot more new chassis.
New chassis has to be the priority for the future.
The engine is 40 years old and the cars are 30 years old, like it or hate it but the majority of S2's in the US are now
vintage.
The late cars can be converted to MZR and get another 20 years of competitive racing with the new cars and at some time in the
future when they become uncompetitive they can be converted back to Pinto and no doubt be THE car to have in vintage circles and would command a good price
to boot.
We have a new chassis (Motus) coming out next week, we have a new manufacturer coming in next year (Ray) and Carbir bringing out
their new design for 2009.
Despite the recession Duratec is on the up because these cars are punching well above their own weight and represent such good
value for money based on their lap times that competitors are coming in from other more expensive Sports Racing Formula.
I am trying to get at least one Duratec car at MO next year so you can all see where we are coming from and understand why they
are becoming so popular amongst other sports racers.
You have started crossing the bridge not much further to go now!!
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
85TIGA |
#226 | |||
|
Posts: 8 10/27/08 06:57:06 |
I would think Brian (Carbir) would be willing to bring a car to Mid-Ohio next year for that purpose Colin??
Lee |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Colin Feyerabend |
#227 | |||
|
Posts: 212 10/27/08 10:48:34 |
I would hope so, we will still try and bring Rick Johnsons Van Diemen over as well with Rick driving, I would be willing to take some bets on that one!! That
is with no areo and a Hewland manual gearbox!!
I think you will be blown away with the raw speed from a bog standard off the shelf cheap base engine. Having said that both Rick with the Van Diemen and Mike Jenvey with the Gunn have developed the car so its not all down to the engine which is why others are playing catch up!! I do expect the cars to move forwards now we have more manufacturers coming in, just like the good old days!! Roll on MO!! |
|||
|
|
||||
|
85TIGA |
setup | #228 | ||
|
Posts: 10 11/13/08 10:26:56 |
I would be happy to help with setting up the car if you wish.
Lee |
|||
|
|
||||
|
David Ferguson |
#229 | |||
|
Posts: 2257 05/06/09 23:18:28 |
I was recently asked my thoughts on this -- and I believe it's a very excellent and well considered proposal -- I'm 100% in favor of it.
I admit that finding the actual proposal was a pain, so I thought I would move this topic to the top... |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Matthew DiRenzo |
Update | #230 | ||
|
Posts: 83 05/07/09 04:30:24 |
Good timing, as I can provide an update. We submitted the proposal to the CRB on May 1; if approved, the new rules will take effect in 2010. The only major
change is as follows:
The MZR will be introduced in a restricted form for at least the first year. HP and minimum weight will be the same as an aluminum head Pinto. There are two reasons for this. First, the unrestricted MZR will produce up to 185 HP, considerably more than can be achieved with simple modifications to the Pinto. This meant that we'd have had to pursue two complex engine programs at the same time, one to limit the MZR and one to upgrade the Pinto. Due to limited resources, we could not have achieved this in the available timeframe. Instead, we focused on the MZR package; Steve Knapp has carried out all the development work. Secondly, the economic meltdown that's occurred over the last 6 months has raised serious questions about how much money people are willing to spend on racing over the next couple years. In an effort to ease the financial pain of this engine transition, we felt it'd be best to provide a buffer period for Pinto users; it's only fair. Note, however, that the MZR won't be handicapped relative to the Pinto as was done in FC w/the Zetec. Should the proposal be implemented, we'll decide what to do about bumping HP after observing the MZR's adoption rate over the course of year one. The rest remains as outlined in my original post. Knapp selected the UK's Jenvey intake and a Life Racing ECU as the EFI system. Pro-built wiring harnesses will be available, or you can make your own. Mazda is offering us considerable support in two forms. They'll sell complete long blocks to club racers for $2,300 -- a phenomenal price. A contingency comparable to FM's and FE's will be offered. I believe that amounts to $500 for winning a division, $5,000 for winning the Runoffs ($2,500 for 2nd, $1,250 for third), and another $2,000 for winning the triple crown. Not bad compared to our current incentives of $0. The proposal has to go through the CRB and advisory committee before being opened up to member input. They might request additional changes. We expect the member input period to take place during the month of June; that'll be when you "vote." I'll upload a copy of the final version for you all to review well in advance. It's pretty simple... when the member input period opens, tell the CRB what you want. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
David Ferguson |
Latest Document? | #231 | ||
|
Posts: 2258 05/07/09 06:39:27 |
Could you update your document you get with the link in the first message (or edit the message to add a link to the "latest" version).
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
Matthew DiRenzo |
#232 | |||
|
Posts: 84 05/07/09 08:02:13 |
Done. Link updated in the original post.
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
mbrandt1402 |
#233 | |||
|
Posts: 306 05/07/09 08:28:00 |
I like Matt's proposal, but I have two reservations: the ECU and intake parts are un-necessarily expensive.
I spoke with Goodwin Racing about their streetable intake and exhaust modifications for the current MX-5, source of the MZR. Their test car went from 130-ish wheel hp to 166 with cold air intake, header and free flowing exhaust. The MZR is buried deep in the MX-5 chassis. By comparison, we don't face any difficulties getting air into and out of these engines as installed in an S2 chassis, so there is no reason to believe we could not beat their 166 wheel hp. A conservative estimate of drivetrain losses is 25hp, so a street legal MX-5 with their add-ons is actually beyond the 185 target, and I thnk there is frequently a net gain when drysump systems are installed. As to packaging, we have room for the intake manifold and downdraft Weber on our Pintos. The OEM intake and plenum won't create any packaging problems for us. The Jenvey pieces are gawd-awful sexy, but it is just eye-candy at 185 hp and for sure at 150. From what I have dug up, the chosen ECU has a list price of over US$2000. I've talked with the guys behind the Megasquirt. It has all the capability we need and then some, for about 25 - 30% of the cost of the ECU Steve Knapp has selected. A potential drawback is that the system is open by nature and cannot easily be locked. However, the tuning software most commonly used is slated to receive a feature that will quickly (within seconds) compare the active map to a map file on a laptop and report differences. While that isn't a locked ECU, I think it is the next best thing: maps could be checked on a random basis quickly and effectively in post-race impound at any race. The chosen ecu could prove to be just as open, if you have the right software. My personal preference is to specify and strictly limit what the ecu sees as far as sensor input, specificy an inlet restrictor and have an open ecu. We're allowed to muck around with a/f ratio and ignition timing currently, so let's continue to do so, but with modern tools. Some may think it would be horrible to be beaten by someone with better computer skills, but what's the difference between that and a better chassis setup, an engine from the best builder or shocks tuned by this year's guru? By limiting the sensors the ecu sees, the scope of what can be done via ecu software can be controlled. If there is anyone else that thinks this would be an interesting possibility, I have a few more ideas, but my sense is that this is too foreign an idea for many and could drag down the MZR proposal. So my quick analysis is that the proposal is worthy, but has about $2000 of un-necessary expense built into it. The extra two grand probably won't affect S2 Runoffs participants, but the proposal touches all of us, not just the top dawgs. It's a significant amount of money for the lower echelon S2 racers, and you don't get anything for it, other than some sexy individual throttle bodies that are probably going to be hidden by the shared plenum & air filter system.
Last Edited By: mbrandt1402 05/07/09 08:30:57.
Edited 1 time.
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
Bruce Allison 87 |
#234 | |||
|
Posts: 221 05/07/09 13:45:24 |
To anyone that knows the numbers>
Is there an estimate for what just the parts for this conversion would cost? MZR engine outfitted to S2 spec, including clutch, dry sump, EFI Exhaust system Airbox & scoop Cooling adaptations Trunions/bellhousing adapters/front motor mounts etc. Alloy caliper conversion (presumably the old masters won't work with the 4 new calipers) 5 speed conversion for gearboxes (I believe Williams quoted this as "a few hundred dollars" for a MK9) BA |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Mark Schue |
Questions and concerns on the proposal | #235 | ||
|
Posts: 575 05/07/09 14:21:13 |
Matt, Great job on the proposal. Very well thought out and written. This looks like something I can get behind. Thank you for all your work on this and for working with Mazda to gain their support. My thoughts for discussion: B.6.a what is a "production" valve job. The word "production" could open to interpetation. What is meant by this? Can the word "production" just be deleted? B.6.g Matt mentions in his posts that the HP will be the same as the aluminum head. I assume that will be controlled by the ECU mapping? I would be more comfortable if the rule included verbaige to the effect "the intent of the "SCCA" map is to produce the same HP as the aluminum head"...or "the intent of the SCCA map is to produce 150hp at 7000 RPM." (not sure if 150 and 7000 are the right numbers) What about torque? |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Fred Michael |
#236 | |||
|
Posts: 284 05/07/09 18:09:06 |
Matt
Nice job. Please note that bearings are UNDERSIZE not oyersize. Well done proposal. Bruce Master cylinders probably do not need to be changed. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
rajaracer |
MZR | #237 | ||
|
Posts: 278 05/07/09 18:15:41 |
boy am i glad this board is back up and running
 great job matt and
tony. since we're running the bare minimum schedule this year, it's been very boring (going to change brake pads on the porsche this weekend  ) i'm voting for the proposal. i'd still like to see hp in the 165-175
range, but one step at a time.
marc |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Tigaman |
#238 | |||
|
Posts: 3075 05/07/09 18:28:25 Administrator |
Matthew DiRenzo wrote: Great job! Thanks, Matt and Tony.
-Peter
www.peterkrause.net "The Driver is the Greatest Performance Variable in the Racing Equation." |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Matthew DiRenzo |
#239 | |||
|
Posts: 85 05/08/09 05:35:52 |
Mark Schue wrote: In both cases, I copied the wording verbatim from FC's Zetec engine section. The "production" term is merely descriptive and qualified by the subsequent reference to the Mazda factory manual specifications. The FC Zetec rules go a little further, calling out some of those specs. I felt that was superfluous, but it can be added if desired. The advisory committee will likely raise similar questions, so expect a few revisions. Regarding your question on the power requirements, I wasn't sure if that could be included in the GCR. In the e-mail I sent the CRB, I explained the situation and requested their feedback on how to formally outline that aspect of the proposal. As far as how the power's being limited, it'll be a combination of rev limit, intake restrictor, and mapping, all of which come from the "control" EFI system Elite has put together. That's why we need to spec those components as a package. Thank you all for the input. I'll continue noting any rule discrepancies you point out; expect them to be addressed prior to the member input period. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
David Arundel |
My 2 cents worth | #240 | ||
|
Posts: 61 05/18/09 13:37:10 |
A word from the vintage side.
My motto is simplify and execute. This has turned into a very complex discussion. Why do new cars cost so much? To me that is the single greatest deterrent for new participants. Now...please...don't laugh...but why can't we come up with a turnkey S2000 with a new and reliable motor (duratec, MZR or??) that is race ready for $60,000 all in. I would sell my beloved 85 Swift DB2 for $25,000....and buy one of the new cars in a hearbeat. Brian Utt is working hard to try and drive costs down by sourcing parts, even tubs from China. $60,000 is STILL a lot of money...but it isn't $75K or $85K. Does EVERY part on the new car have to be "the best" or "the most advanced?" I think the most important thing is a modern motor that is predictable, easy to run and has long life. Those exist...several varieties. Build the car around the motor. Keep the car simple. If you built a "modern" Swift DB2 and put a "new" motor in it...you would have a great car. I make a good living, but like many of you I have kids and college and on and on. There is a limit to what many or most people will spend on their race car. The cost of admission is too high. How did the "hundreds" of Lola's, Tigas, Shannons, Swifts, Chevrons, March, Apache etc. etc. get built..... The admission price as a percent of income must have been much lower. Tub, body, uprights, arms, wheels, transmission, modern engine..how can that cost $80,000? Make the package affordable and many of us would buy NEW cars. I think it can be done...I am cheering for Brian Utt! |
|||
|
|
||||
Quick Reply
Sports Racer Technology
UK SRCC Sports 2000
Sports Toyota Forum
Formula Mazda Forum
