|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
View Poll Results: Should steel crankshafts be used. | |||
Steel crankshafts...yes | 117 | 75.48% | |
Steel crankshafts...no | 9 | 5.81% | |
Leave it the way its always been | 29 | 18.71% | |
Voters: 155. You may not vote on this poll |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
26 Jan 2009, 20:13 (Ref:2379904) | #1126 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 578
|
I really can't agree with the synicism I read. OK it is a monopoly by SkyFord to get steel cranks identified but isn't this a good way to preserve the 'one-ness' that's FF? So many Formulae have gone down the pan by modifications taking them through the £roof (down, then up, bit of a mix of mets..) all in an £uncontrolled way. OK, there are business interests involved here - anyone can see that - but there is also a great traditional interest being properly kept under control. Standard engines lead to even racing. Good even racing that's been going 40 years and thanks to those movers and shakers who have understood our concerns (my last crank blow-up even took part of the gearbox with it) have got together and are making sure it will carry on for a fair few more. It might sound I'm creeping but I ain't, I say thanks guys.
|
||
|
27 Jan 2009, 10:59 (Ref:2380402) | #1127 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,920
|
Quote:
Last edited by Triple J Motorsport; 27 Jan 2009 at 11:06. |
|||
__________________
Built and Engineered FFZetec 2006 festival winner. 3rd 2009 & 2012 FFZetec festival final |
27 Jan 2009, 11:04 (Ref:2380407) | #1128 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,920
|
Quote:
|
|||
__________________
Built and Engineered FFZetec 2006 festival winner. 3rd 2009 & 2012 FFZetec festival final |
27 Jan 2009, 21:18 (Ref:2380968) | #1129 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,338
|
Quote:
Your right.....to a point. But when you say the movers and shakers have understood our concerns. It's a pity they have took so long to make a decision. This issue first appeared NEARLY 5 YEARS AGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Hardy pro-active is it? Your right, good Formula has maintained the changes, but these are changes to help keep a long standing formula.....well.............long standing. These engines are over 40 years old now. What's wrong with a few tweeks here and there to keep the longevity. The arguement is, why does it have to be marked by the powers that be? Surely a receipt of purchase will suffice. It's not like anyone is going to spend that sort of money and not admit to it. On the flywheel subject, as far as i was aware, there is no huge performance gain, other than spinning the engine up faster and making the overall weight of the car lighter. But on that, if everyone can have the flywheel lightened, then it does away with cheating by lightened flywheel. Am I right in saying that the Kent engine in the early XR" had a lightened flywheel? If so, rather than draft a raft (poetry corner ;o)) of rule changes for it. Use the XR2 spec flywheel. Now would be a good time to implement this before all the engines go back in after having their crank changed............... |
|||
__________________
A new Middle East Crisis erupted last night as Dubai TV refused to broadcast 'The Flintstones'. A spokesman said, "Dubai citizens wouldn't understand the humour, but those in Abu Dhabi Do!". |
28 Jan 2009, 11:06 (Ref:2381334) | #1130 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,920
|
Yes you are right the original XR2 had a lighter flywheel so good idea to aim for this weight? How many of these are around now? Much easier to get your flywheel lightened it's balanced seperately to the crank anyway.
|
||
__________________
Built and Engineered FFZetec 2006 festival winner. 3rd 2009 & 2012 FFZetec festival final |
28 Jan 2009, 18:12 (Ref:2381579) | #1131 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,523
|
mmm I like the sound of that. Does anyone know how much lighter the XR2 flywheel was?
|
|
|
31 Jan 2009, 19:40 (Ref:2383347) | #1132 | |
Rookie
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 65
|
Why have engine builders recommended lightened fly wheels?
If I recall, a lightened flywheel allows the engine to rev more freely which means that losses of accelerating the flywheel are reduced. If the cranks is supposed to be stronger, then why would flywheel changes be necessary? Do we need a technical working group, of sorts, where possible engine modifications may be requested on certain grounds, i.e. cost of manufacture, projected lifespan? Seriously, what changes to the Kent engine would we find acceptable in order to reduce its running cost and would we be prepared to continue with these changes even if it meant that the kent engine remains only in the name on the block? |
|
|
31 Jan 2009, 21:14 (Ref:2383379) | #1133 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,523
|
Quote:
there is much less chance of whacking the starter ring off the kerbs when you run a wee bit wide. And from what I am led to believe, it is this whack and the associated repercussions that are most likely to crack the crankshaft and/or cause serious damage to the engine. Therefore; if the flywheel weight was to be reduced by a sufficient amount it may be possible (would it be possible?) to remove the starter ring reduce the diameter of the flywheel by the given amount, and then fit a new starter ring (manufactured to suit, along with a matching gear wheel to be fitted to the armature spindle on the starter motor,) if it was a small amount the starter motor should still be able to start the engine ok. I imagine only the technophobes are still with me. I may be talking out through a great big hole in my thingymajig, but then again, this is the place to do it. |
||
|
31 Jan 2009, 21:41 (Ref:2383389) | #1134 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 201
|
SAMD, the problems with reducing the diameter of the flywheel are many and thought the best option is impractical to most.
Flywheel's hitting the ground for obvious reasons is a problem but in some cars, later ones especially, it cannot happen. However the forces exerted into the flywheel by the sump or adaptor plate hitting the ground will exert some similar forces. The reduction in weight of the flywheel is to help the transitional forces from the flywheel into the crank and by a reduction in weight of the standard flywheel its a relatively simple thing to have done. The change has already been made around the globe except here as normal |
||
|
3 Feb 2009, 13:24 (Ref:2387402) | #1135 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,920
|
In simple terms if you hang a weight on the end of a stick and wave the stick up and down it is likely to break if the weight is less it's less likely to...same principle applies.
You do get general weight reduction plus the engine accelerates and deccelerates quicker. What have the rest of the FF world reduced their weight to? Last edited by Triple J Motorsport; 3 Feb 2009 at 13:26. |
||
__________________
Built and Engineered FFZetec 2006 festival winner. 3rd 2009 & 2012 FFZetec festival final |
3 Feb 2009, 21:56 (Ref:2387730) | #1136 | ||
Rookie
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1
|
US Flywheel spec
US SCCA spec = 15.5 lbs minimum
All US SCCA rules can be found on their website. |
||
|
4 Feb 2009, 17:29 (Ref:2388301) | #1137 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 520
|
But it should also be noted that the US regs allow a racing clutch and therefore the flywheel has to be machined anyway. The total weight of the rotating masses in the US spec engine is way lower - but they also allow alloy heads (for some FF classes), a spec cam and spec inlet manifolds so they really have drifted away from the formula as we know it.......
|
|
|
4 Feb 2009, 19:41 (Ref:2388403) | #1138 | |
Rookie
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 65
|
So how does the cost of ownership compare between the US and UK markets especially with regards to the regulations?
|
|
|
4 Feb 2009, 21:35 (Ref:2388484) | #1139 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 201
|
Flywheels, UK: Flywheel and clutch assembly minimum permitted weight: 13.16kg. (including all flywheel and crankshaft mounting bolts).
Australia, New Zealand (and think South Africa): The flywheel and clutch assembly weight shall be no less than 11.79kg. The assembly is defined as; ‘all the rotating components affixed to the rear of the engine crankshaft excepting the spigot bush/bearing’., The US engine regs: Have allowed an Alloy head to original spec for some time as there was a shortage and the inlet manifold can be polished and ported. Otherwise they have a lot of OE pattern parts which are specified to help keep costs down, valves, head gaskets etc. In recent years a forged piston has also been allow with the aim of getting a 3000 mile engine life span between engine rebuilds. Over all the engines produce about 113ish BHP against our 105ish. On the whole a cheaper experience. |
||
|
5 Feb 2009, 08:32 (Ref:2388731) | #1140 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 520
|
The US can also run alloy wheels and slicks in their top "FF" classes, their whole package is much closer to a "duratech junior" type class. There is really no longer much in common with what we do.
|
|
|
5 Feb 2009, 08:54 (Ref:2388745) | #1141 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 118
|
I thought it was originally the argument that supplied parts were substandard and we were looking at like for like alternative parts, NOT MODS. This discussion is going the way alot of people thought it would. You give an inch.
|
||
__________________
Every hole's a goal |
6 Feb 2009, 10:39 (Ref:2389653) | #1142 | |||
Racer
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 201
|
Quote:
However some years ago engine supply problems where really and issue and the classes where shrinking. Some of the engine builders and Jake Lamont in the US campaigned for some limited modifications to the original spec parts on a like for like basis. The result has been the engine is now not a reliability issue at all and though not the largest class in the US it is growing once again, you can even buy a new US made car. |
|||
|
5 Dec 2010, 21:41 (Ref:2800108) | #1143 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,446
|
I haven't really followed ff1600 for a year or 2 but would be interested to see if the steel crank has made a difference to both rebuilds and holding together? A year has gone by so what is the results?
|
||
|
31 Dec 2010, 00:25 (Ref:2809586) | #1144 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 578
|
We seem to have had what might be described as a lot less blow-ups in the Historics this year. Haven't actually been counting as there haven't really been any to count......!
|
||
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
New Cranks with Flywheels | Walshy | Club Level Single Seaters | 19 | 9 Feb 2009 12:57 |
FF1600 in the UK | jimbomit | Club Level Single Seaters | 4 | 8 Nov 2005 15:19 |
Which FF1600 | Midgebradley | Club Level Single Seaters | 33 | 29 Jun 2005 17:11 |
Which came first - the FF1600 or the Vee! :) | Triple J Motorsport | Club Level Single Seaters | 75 | 21 Mar 2005 15:37 |