Home  
Site Partners: SpotterGuides Veloce Books  
Related Sites: Your Link Here  

Go Back   TenTenths Motorsport Forum > Single Seater Racing > Club Level Single Seaters

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 26 Jan 2009, 20:13 (Ref:2379904)   #1126
dikko
Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
United Kingdom
Herts
Posts: 578
dikko should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
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.
dikko is offline  
Quote
Old 27 Jan 2009, 10:59 (Ref:2380402)   #1127
Triple J Motorsport
Veteran
 
Triple J Motorsport's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
England
Burgess Hill W Sussex
Posts: 1,920
Triple J Motorsport should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by StephenRae
This Don Hilton just can't let go can he?
I may be a cynic but wouldn't one be admitting to cheating by declaring a steel crank now?
How much will it cost to have the 'unique' number stamped on?
My theory is that Scat have assured that without lightening the flywheel their cranks will break just as often, thus safeguarding profits!
My sympathies are with the Chinese guy with the foundry who will have to go back to casting agricultural stuff!
I was told by two engine builders that the flywheel needs lightening too. Trouble is that is a performance gain, althought easily and cheaply done.

Last edited by Triple J Motorsport; 27 Jan 2009 at 11:06.
Triple J Motorsport is offline  
__________________
Built and Engineered FFZetec 2006 festival winner.

3rd 2009 & 2012 FFZetec festival final
Quote
Old 27 Jan 2009, 11:04 (Ref:2380407)   #1128
Triple J Motorsport
Veteran
 
Triple J Motorsport's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
England
Burgess Hill W Sussex
Posts: 1,920
Triple J Motorsport should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Athgoe Racing
Fantastic news, it keeps all parties happy as long as don makes his cut from the discount he receives and does not add to the price of them!
Totally agree with that Nev
Triple J Motorsport is offline  
__________________
Built and Engineered FFZetec 2006 festival winner.

3rd 2009 & 2012 FFZetec festival final
Quote
Old 27 Jan 2009, 21:18 (Ref:2380968)   #1129
Walshy
Veteran
 
Walshy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
England
Lancashire
Posts: 1,338
Walshy should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by dikko
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.

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...............
Walshy is offline  
__________________
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!".
Quote
Old 28 Jan 2009, 11:06 (Ref:2381334)   #1130
Triple J Motorsport
Veteran
 
Triple J Motorsport's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
England
Burgess Hill W Sussex
Posts: 1,920
Triple J Motorsport should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
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.
Triple J Motorsport is offline  
__________________
Built and Engineered FFZetec 2006 festival winner.

3rd 2009 & 2012 FFZetec festival final
Quote
Old 28 Jan 2009, 18:12 (Ref:2381579)   #1131
SAMD
Veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,523
SAMD should be qualifying in the top 10 on the gridSAMD should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
mmm I like the sound of that. Does anyone know how much lighter the XR2 flywheel was?
SAMD is offline  
Quote
Old 31 Jan 2009, 19:40 (Ref:2383347)   #1132
onenastyviper
Rookie
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 65
onenastyviper should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid

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?
onenastyviper is offline  
Quote
Old 31 Jan 2009, 21:14 (Ref:2383379)   #1133
SAMD
Veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,523
SAMD should be qualifying in the top 10 on the gridSAMD should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by onenastyviper
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?
Well, what was in my mind with my question was... if the amount of weight coming off the flywheel weight was sufficient to remove say.. 10 -15mm from the diameter of the flywheel, then, apart from any performance difference with the reduced reciprocating weight and associated benefits...
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.
SAMD is offline  
Quote
Old 31 Jan 2009, 21:41 (Ref:2383389)   #1134
ff90
Racer
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location:
Lancaster
Posts: 201
ff90 should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
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
ff90 is offline  
Quote
Old 3 Feb 2009, 13:24 (Ref:2387402)   #1135
Triple J Motorsport
Veteran
 
Triple J Motorsport's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
England
Burgess Hill W Sussex
Posts: 1,920
Triple J Motorsport should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
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.
Triple J Motorsport is offline  
__________________
Built and Engineered FFZetec 2006 festival winner.

3rd 2009 & 2012 FFZetec festival final
Quote
Old 3 Feb 2009, 21:56 (Ref:2387730)   #1136
scott hanba
Rookie
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
United States
USA
Posts: 1
scott hanba should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
US Flywheel spec

US SCCA spec = 15.5 lbs minimum

All US SCCA rules can be found on their website.
scott hanba is offline  
Quote
Old 4 Feb 2009, 17:29 (Ref:2388301)   #1137
Simon Hadfield
Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 520
Simon Hadfield should be qualifying in the top 10 on the gridSimon Hadfield should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
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.......
Simon Hadfield is offline  
Quote
Old 4 Feb 2009, 19:41 (Ref:2388403)   #1138
onenastyviper
Rookie
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 65
onenastyviper should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
So how does the cost of ownership compare between the US and UK markets especially with regards to the regulations?
onenastyviper is offline  
Quote
Old 4 Feb 2009, 21:35 (Ref:2388484)   #1139
ff90
Racer
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location:
Lancaster
Posts: 201
ff90 should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
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.
ff90 is offline  
Quote
Old 5 Feb 2009, 08:32 (Ref:2388731)   #1140
Simon Hadfield
Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 520
Simon Hadfield should be qualifying in the top 10 on the gridSimon Hadfield should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
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.
Simon Hadfield is offline  
Quote
Old 5 Feb 2009, 08:54 (Ref:2388745)   #1141
FranksWilde
Racer
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
United Kingdom
Manchester
Posts: 118
FranksWilde should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
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.
FranksWilde is offline  
__________________
Every hole's a goal
Quote
Old 6 Feb 2009, 10:39 (Ref:2389653)   #1142
ff90
Racer
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location:
Lancaster
Posts: 201
ff90 should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Hadfield
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.
The US has always had differences both regionally and nationally to what we do in the UK, tryes, body work, exhaust etc but the engine has with the exception of the inlet manifold and a lighter flywheel remained as the Ford regs intended in design if not materials.
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.
ff90 is offline  
Quote
Old 5 Dec 2010, 21:41 (Ref:2800108)   #1143
Redracer77
Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location:
Didsbury/Chorley
Posts: 3,446
Redracer77 should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
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?
Redracer77 is offline  
Quote
Old 31 Dec 2010, 00:25 (Ref:2809586)   #1144
dikko
Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
United Kingdom
Herts
Posts: 578
dikko should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
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......!
dikko is offline  
Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:49.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Original Website Copyright © 1998-2003 Craig Antil. All Rights Reserved.
Ten-Tenths Motorsport Forums Copyright © 2004-2021 Royalridge Computing. All Rights Reserved.
Ten-Tenths Motorsport Forums Copyright © 2021-2022 Grant MacDonald. All Rights Reserved.