November meeting

Post Reply
Dietmar
Site Admin
Posts: 650
Joined: June 24th, 2006, 11:56 am

November meeting

Post by Dietmar »

The FV Committee met on November 12 .

Members attending were: Steve Oseth, Stevan Davis, Bruce Livermore, Mike Kochanski, and Dietmar Bauerle. Fred Clark, National Tech Inspector was asked to join as a guest.

Due to a change in SCCA policy, this meeting was held at the request of the CRB in lieu of the regular scheduled meeting set for November 26.

Items for discussion:

Manifolds

The CRB asked the Ad Hoc Committee to look at the wording in the GCR as it applies to manifolds. Since we are working with mass produced parts, there need to be some accommodations when it comes to inspection tolerances. With this in mind , we understand that this can lead to some loose interpretations of existing rules. Fred Clark provided some clarifications and additions to the current rules as they might apply to manifolds and after lengthy discussion, the Committee will be forwarding the clarifications and additions to the CRB for their consideration. The CRB may request member input at some future date.


Valve spring caps and retainers:

A member requested clarification of the rule C.5.D.14.b- specifically that...any steel spring cap and retainers may be used.

It is the opinion of the Committee that titanium caps/retainers are not steel, are non magnetic, and therefore their use is deemed to be illegal in FV.

Non discussion items:

The new track at Moroso , although at the same location , does not resemble the old track both in configuration and facilities. Little is known about the new track and those who venture to the track are asked to provide some feedback.

No other items were presented or discussed.

Next regular meeting is scheduled for December 24 but will most likely not happen until the 4th Wednesday in January.
veehive
Posts: 202
Joined: June 24th, 2006, 2:56 pm

Re: November meeting

Post by veehive »

Thanks, guys. Happy Holidays! See you next year.

- DMcK
Team Shanghai Alice
brian
Posts: 1348
Joined: June 26th, 2006, 12:31 pm

Re: November meeting

Post by brian »

Your posting indicates that the CRB "may" request input on rewording of the manifold section. I really hope membership input would be mandatory if any rewrite is done. Is this action is in response the almost histerical over-reaction to new manifolds at the Runoffs? Since there were no manifolds deemed illegal what is the issue? Do we need to rewrite a rule everytime someone gains an advantage from the existing rules? The manifold rules have been in place for many years and, as was the case in the last rewrite, do we really want to re-establish the parameters for the manifolds and cause a new generation of manifolds to be produced? Be careful for what you wish for because there are unexpected consequences every time.
The above post is for reference only and your results may vary. This post is not intended to reflect the views or opinions of SCCA and should not be considered an analysis or opinion of the rules written in the GCR.
SOseth
Posts: 47
Joined: June 26th, 2006, 9:24 am

Re: November meeting

Post by SOseth »

Brian;

What is deemed compliant or non-compliant by tech at the Runoffs only carries weight at the Runoffs. It carries no weight at any other event. I think that is why tech wanted to clarify certain aspects of the rules. I would expect the CRB and BOD would put the final version out for input.

SteveO
brian
Posts: 1348
Joined: June 26th, 2006, 12:31 pm

Re: November meeting

Post by brian »

I received a copy of the proposal and agree it seems rather benign. One issue regarding the visablity of the vw casting marks in the flanges. Sometimes the holes are enlarged to compensate for engine widths and that can obliterate the logo. I'd hate to see a perfectly good manifold be considered illegal because the holes were modified.
The above post is for reference only and your results may vary. This post is not intended to reflect the views or opinions of SCCA and should not be considered an analysis or opinion of the rules written in the GCR.
jpetillo
Posts: 759
Joined: August 26th, 2006, 2:54 pm

Re: November meeting

Post by jpetillo »

brian wrote:I received a copy of the proposal and agree it seems rather benign. One issue regarding the visiblity of the vw casting marks in the flanges. Sometimes the holes are enlarged to compensate for engine widths and that can obliterate the logo. I'd hate to see a perfectly good manifold be considered illegal because the holes were modified.
I was thinking that perhaps Brian may be jumping the gun and that we should all wait for a final draft of the new rules to be sent to the drivers, but he has been making some excellent points.

About the castings, Brian's right. I just checked out my two manifolds (I got them with the car), both look night and day different in almost every way, and one of the vw castings appears to have been taken over by the stud hole. What's left appears to be just part of the outer circle of a logo, and perhaps would be considered illegal by some tech officials under the new rules. These are just generic regional manifolds. I do plan to get a "new" manifold someday, since mine were tested and were not producing good power, but I would hate to be forced to replace them before I was financially ready. And then my old ones would be scrap. I'm guessing that the modified rules are partly an effort to contain costs, and not add to them.

Perhaps it's best if the draft were sent to the manifold "manufacturers" - but, not the whole vee community yet - for a sanity check and comments. This will make the draft that the CRB finally sends to the community more solid - meaning less arguments and smoother acceptance.

Just my 2-cents, John
SOseth
Posts: 47
Joined: June 26th, 2006, 9:24 am

Re: November meeting

Post by SOseth »

John;

I know Mike Kochanski was involved in the process and I believe Dave Carr at Autowerks was involved as well.

SteveO
SOseth
Posts: 47
Joined: June 26th, 2006, 9:24 am

Re: November meeting

Post by SOseth »

brian wrote:I received a copy of the proposal and agree it seems rather benign. One issue regarding the visablity of the vw casting marks in the flanges. Sometimes the holes are enlarged to compensate for engine widths and that can obliterate the logo. I'd hate to see a perfectly good manifold be considered illegal because the holes were modified.

I have yet to have to enlarge the holes on the the mounting flanges where the intake manifold mounts to the cylinder head. I have had to manipulate the manifold to fit on the engine because ( I have alway assumed) the jugs have been shortened to achieve whatever deck height. It would seem to me that one would not want to enlarge the mounting holes. It would be paramount to make sure the bore of the manifold and the cylinder head port be aligned. No??

SteveO
jpetillo
Posts: 759
Joined: August 26th, 2006, 2:54 pm

Re: November meeting

Post by jpetillo »

SOseth wrote:I have yet to have to enlarge the holes on the the mounting flanges where the intake manifold mounts to the cylinder head. I have had to manipulate the manifold to fit on the engine because ( I have alway assumed) the jugs have been shortened to achieve whatever deck height. It would seem to me that one would not want to enlarge the mounting holes. It would be paramount to make sure the bore of the manifold and the cylinder head port be aligned. No??
SteveO
Perhaps you're right. But, I just picked up my two manifolds to have another look. On one, the VW casting is barely left on one side and the other side's is only half there. Even much smaller holes that would be too small for the stud to fit through would still cut well into these castings. The hole sizes look the same on both manifold, and prepared by different people. Of course both could have been enlarged, I suppose.
I think the concern I would have is that even a stock flange could get a manifold deemed illegal. The rules may need to be stricter, but not so detailed that a tech inspector that isn't a Vee manifold expert can't reliably pass judgement. Our tech inspectors are not Vee experts, and will not necessarily listen when our local deep, experience field of Vee racers stands at your side. So, unless a rule only applies to the national fields that maybe can ensure a vee expert tech inspector be present, I hope the rules are written to consider being clearly understood and "measurable" by any tech inspector team.
That is a general statement, and should apply to all rules for all classes.
John
Post Reply