FF1600 Rockers, Swift 94,95 ray 97-2000

[foreversideways]

I have endless stories of run in's with scruts from my earlier racing career. Give a man a uniform

[Lola]

You could say build a car to the rules....not bend the rules to suit the cars.
This could be the savior of FF1600 racing. These new cars or Zetec converted machines will kill it. Before they came along you could be very competative in virtually any ff1600. Now sadly to run at the front you need a very expensive piece of kit.
I know its harsh and i do feel very sorry for anyone caught out by this. I really hope this is sorted soon. I know i was caught out by some silly blue book rule last year as one or two of you know. The cars who fall into this trap are very competative anyway. Maybe as they fall into their own class, maybe create their own set of rules and regs away from the ford motor company. But to do this i believe it takes 12 months to change ANY championship rules.

[foreversideways]

Still one or two guys doing rather well in Reynard 89s though !!.

[Ian Sowman]

Originally Posted by Lola

You could say build a car to the rules....not bend the rules to suit the cars.
This could be the savior of FF1600 racing. These new cars or Zetec converted machines will kill it. Before they came along you could be very competative in virtually any ff1600. Now sadly to run at the front you need a very expensive piece of kit.

I agree with the first bit, not the second. It simply isn't true that you need a Class A car to be at the front, which seems to be your suggestion - witness Peter Dempsey. It is also natural that the better drivers and those who could throw more money at an effort anyway will gravitate to the newer cars.

And in any case, the cars that have been "caught out" to date weren't such cars.

[Lola]

ok. I dont really know who was caught out and i dont think they should be named on here.
If thats so why is everyone buying the later generation cars?

[foreversideways]

Motorsport in general attracts people with money. Of course there are those people who do compete on miniscule budgets but those with money to spend will always look to new equipment to try and establish an advantage. Its just life.

[Ian Sowman]

Originally Posted by Lola

ok. I dont really know who was caught out and i dont think they should be named on here.
If thats so why is everyone buying the later generation cars?

Swift SC94s and on and pre-2000 Rays are certainly affected, and possibly more cars too. And there's no problem with naming - for example - Matt Rivett and Paul Mason as being excluded. It is a simple fact, has been reported in the press and on the FF1600 website, and it is a case of them not having done anything wrong as such. Yes, parts have been deemed illegal now, but they are the same parts that have been legal in the past.

Why are people buying later generation cars? Why not? They're no less competitive than any other but those who won championships in them last year - Wills and Moore - were both quick in early 1990s Swifts, too.

[Lola]

Having seen the title thread 'FF1600 Rockers' i thought some of the drivers had formed a band!!!

Mind you, Mr Dawkins is more 'Busted' than 'Guns and Roses'

[dhart]

[QUOTE=Ian Sowman] Yes, parts have been deemed illegal now, but they are the same parts that have been legal in the past.

No Ian the parts have never been legal....just not noticed before! I ran a Swift94 for 2 seasons... the issue of ally bellcranks never entered my head,sure it makes little/no difference but they dont conform to the rules,so sorry go away and make them conform.The car was a Zetec conversion and this one item that needed to be changed had been missed,unlike the Adlam car Walshy mentioned earlier..it was 100% legal ( having fabricated bellcranks)very well put together and welcomed to race in the Kent class.

Very few cars are affected as you have pointed out,its no big deal really, i feel sorry for those at Silverstone who hadnt been told last season , but the rest......well they had been warned!

Why have a "new" car? cos everything is newer, you would spend as much rebuilding a 92 car to be as good so why bother!?!?

[Ian Sowman]

Originally Posted by dhart

No Ian the parts have never been legal

You knew what I meant!

[Barry Pomfret]

I think every car on the grid is technically illegal if you read the fire-proof bulkhead regulations relating to the panel between the engine and driver! I had a very interesting conversation with a "jobs-worth" scrutineer at Oulton about 10 years ago, just above the seat there were two tiny holes in the ali. panel where the chassis plate had been removed, he refused to pass the car as the bulk head was " not fire proof". I sent one of my guys to collect the pop rivet gun and place two new rivets in the holes and he was happy! After he had given me the ticket I said , " so the bloody great hole round the gear linkage and wiring loom are ok then?", quickly jumped in the car and got out of the scrutineering bay as quickly as possible.

[Paul-J]

I met with Alan Cooper from Swift Cooper this pm (Sunday) at Combe. He has started to make the steel bell cranks as needed for the 94 and 95 Swifts. He asked me to post this message - he says that they will be delivering the ordered sets needed for Ireland for next weekends racing during next week. Anybody else needing some - tel 01249 783000 to get your order in for delivery from this batch as he needs to know how many to make.
Thanks

[kartingdad]

Originally Posted by dhart

The alloy damper/caliper/rocker debate does matter ,and for the reason you state...cost! There are various(if small) advantages to be gained and would force the majority of "legal" cars owners to incur significant cost. Surley cars should be made to meet the regs not the other way round!?! Formula ford works because of the tight regs ,not despite them, try Monoposto if you dont like them.

Phil,didnt know you had one as well LOL!! The point i am trying to make about the steel crank issue is that a crack free utopia will NOT be acheived, i have spoken to engine builders ,and yes its true,no one uk has run FF1600 steel cranks, but in the states the clutch /flywheel assembly is lighter, which moves the node ( the point at which the crank will bend and eventually crack)which has given them quite an impressive longevity. If it hits the floor it will still bend and crack.

One of the southern builders of high performance Kent race/rally engines regually gets cracked steel cranks, it still happens.

I think it is wrong that people will advised to spend more on a steel crank expecting a final fix.A performance advantage will not be acheived either so why bother?

A simple solution to increase longevity would be to run a lighter flywheel /clutch assembly,moving the node point off the crank...meaning a change in the regs.....or ensure a well balanced assembly from your builder.

The complete cure would be a smaller diameter flywheel which doest hit the ground ( incuring costs for new bellhousings to accomodate the starter) or increase your ride heights and to stay off the kerbs!

How many rally cars flywheels hit the ground? Not that many. Reason why those cranks crack (having run one in the past in a 1600cc dry sumped rally car) is that they also rev to about 9,000 rpm, using steel rocker gear, hard valve springs etc.

Lighter flywheel will help, I agree, so why not go for a proper fix and have steel crank light flywheel. Smaller flywheel will make it pretty hard for the starter motor to engage with the ring gear without a different bellhousing.

For the small additional cost of a steel crank, which would you prefer to have if your life depended on it?

[kartingdad]

And as far as the ally bellcranks are concerned my humble views (FWIW) are as follows:

Looking at the 95 Swift parts catalogue the parts in question are listed as 'Bellcranks' and not rockers.

As the RAC MSA (or whatever they are these days) approved the homologation of these cars and components after examining a prototype version, the onus is on them to retro amend the homologation of ( I was going to say 'offending') but perhaps 'now deemed after 10 years' non compliant cars.

There has been no official bulletin to amend the regs, so I think, certainly in a 'normal' court of law, enough precedent has been set to allow continued use of ally bellcranks, particularly when

a/. There is no appreciable performance gain,

b/. The governing body has not defined the difference in nomenclature between rocker and bellcrank,

c/. It is not proven in the best interest of the sport to enforce this particular rule.

Perhaps someone could define accurately the difference between the two items and their operation. If nobody can do that, then clearly the point is not proved.

No offence to Mr. Bassett withn this post, I have met him on several occasions and have always found him to be pleasant, courteous and commonsensical and am sure he will come up with a solution to keep everyone happy, or at least, the majority......

[TomS]

Originally Posted by JNWRF01

As a casual observer....does it really matter if a car has ally rockers or not (or alloy dampers/calipers etc etc) - so long as the car meets the weight limits, has a legal engine and legal tyres what does it really matter? All this achieves is more expense for the drivers and will take cars off the grid....

Isn't it time for a drivers association to formulate rules & run races to make the whole thing cheaper for competitors...look how the Sports 2000 series has thrived since taking matters into their own hands...

Alloy dampers and calipers yeah...its unsprung weight etc....however when it comes to this ally rockers issue surely a timescale could have been given to change over esp if loads of people are illegal and it isnt a huge advantage to be running it/them.

In sports 2000 there have been various issues regarding eligibility...if i remember correctly there was one regarding length of bodywork behind the driver or something and nearly all the cars where illegal so that was scrapped however rules like minimum weight etc are tightly controlled and various engines are sealed at the end of and during the year which i think makes it a reasonably even series. Sports 2000 does have its own eligibility scrutineer who works with the SRCC but doesn't scrutineer the cars at the beginning of the day...is there a similar system in FF1600 because surely that would help regarding eligibility of the cars as the clubs interests are looked after as well as the competitors. The stability of the rules esp in the pinto series has helped sports 2000 thrive as any rule changes/clarifications were talked about at the AGM in december giving more than enough time to change the offending parts. I would like to point out that the series is run primarily by Colin Feyerbend who has done a huge amount for Sports 2000 and him and his team deserve all the credit for getting the series to where it is now. FF1600 is very very strong, with most club meetings including a ff1600 somewhere so surely there should be some form of common sense applied to the rules and give people time to change if there is no performance advantage as i said above

[verglas]

Originally Posted by TomS

...is there a similar system in FF1600 because surely that would help regarding eligibility of the cars as the clubs interests are looked after as well as the competitors. The stability of the rules esp in the pinto series has helped sports 2000 thrive as any rule changes/clarifications were talked about at the AGM in december giving more than enough time to change the offending parts.

And there, IMHO, is the rub. FF1600 is a strong series but with no competitor 'clout' administered by the BRSCC. It is still run under regulations that have been around for years with many inconsistencies such as the alloy bellcrank debacle. People assume that Ford have an interest in the series. They do not, they are not interested in the Kent engine, it is obsolete as far as they are concerned. Sports 2000 is a fantastic example of how a championship should be organised and run, with an owners club and with sensible regulations drawn up by the competitors for the competitors. From what I see it is a strong series, with lots of competitor input, and importantly there do not seem to be egos the size of mountains to massage. If it can work for S2000, surely to God the FF1600 brigade can do it...

[goughy]

FF1600 is still living in 'the good old days', which is a pity really.

Another part of the problem is that so many different ages of cars are eligible that although comply with the rules, bear witness to the different thinking, both from a design and acceptability point of view that a majority 'voice of the competitor' is fragmented by both personal vested interests and regional issues.

Look how difficult it seems to be to get a proper National series up and running.

Back on the bellcrank theme though, the weak answer being bandied around that 'the 2005 regs are out now, so we will leave it to 2006' is absolute tosh.

All it needs is an amendment in the ASR's to clarify the position and problem sorted. Lets face it, now matter how well off you are, you don't really want to be spending £250 + vat to swap your £50 ally bellcranks, especially when it doesn't give any performance advantage.

And even more so on a cloudy issue that if someone chose to appeal would likely win.

Well, they would in a normal law case, but against a posse of blazers.......

[Walshy]

I agree Goughy.

Personally, it I had the illegal Belcranks on my car and was told I would have to change them for the remainder of this year until the new law came in next year, I wouldn't race.

I'd go and test and have a play, but stay away from the race meetings until the Regs came to me.

I do believe that the rules are there though and this "I didn't know" doesn't wash. We all have to know the rules, but in the same breath, I think it's wrong to start throwing cars out effectively 12 years after Ali belcranks were first used (Swift 93's).

I think John Loebell proved it at the weekend that it doesn't matter what you have on the car. So long as it's above weight and you have a good driver....... What was it? I think his time would have put him in top 5 of the Post '89 race.

[kartingdad]

I take it from the lack of replies to my earlier questions that nobody can define the difference between a bellcrank and a rocker then?

I take it then that in the absence of any definition regarding the use of the ally front bellcranks as fitted for over 10 years to a Swift (for instance) are in fact legal after all.