February Meeting

[Dietmar]

The FV Ad Hoc Committee met Feb 25.

Members attending were Steve Oseth; Mike Kochanski, Stevan Davis, Dietmar Bauerle

Guest: Fred Clark.

Fred Clark (our new member on the CRB) enlightened us on the workings of SCCA and the fact that SCCA is trying to promote more committees such as ours in other classes thereby allowing for more member input on various subjects. He stressed the fact that this is a member organization and that SCCA does respect and request member input.

New business:

A letter was received from a member requesting consideration of a change in the wording of the current rules with regards to the use of oil sumps in FV. The request not only asked that the system be free, but also the mounting location for the sump be unrestricted. There is concern that this might open the doors beyond what is beneficial for the class. The Committee feels this request needs further discussion and will take the matter under review.

Old business:

The SCCA Board has adopted the new manifold rules which will go into effect April 1, 2009. New sections were added to the existing rules in order to better control the manifold building process and to improve the ability for scrutineers to determine whether or not all manifolds meet SCCA requirements for legality. These changes can be found in Fastrack.

It is the opinion of this committee however that certain changes in the new rules need further consideration . Specifically, the new rules will return to measuring the area of the horizontal tube just above the manifold flange. As written, this measurement will be 1.050”and is to be measured 0.1875" (3/16) above either the flange or any braze repair at the flange.

Having examined many manifolds, we have found that indeed some manifolds exceed this number (1.050”) in more areas than just above the flanges. In order to try to control costs and “keep the playing field level”, the Committee has agreed that the new rules should be reexamined to better control modification of the entire horizontal tube from head flange to head flange. We recommend that the area to be controlled by the 1.050" dimension be expanded to include any portion of the tube from the flange to the area commonly referred to as the bend- (the bend being where the straight horizontal section changes direction). Again, with many manifolds in hand, it is the Committee’s position that new measurement locations should be defined from the center of the down tube to “the bend”: 8.5” on the 3-4 side and 9.75” on the 1-2 side. This is to clarify where the "bend" begins. The current .994" rule will be retained in the straight section of the horizontal tube .

Using a GO/NO GO gauge is one suggested measuring technique. Any manifold that exceeds the 1.050” measurement in the area specified would be subject to further examination. Another option is to use a measurement method similar to that used in the straight sections (averaging multiple measurements). Exactly how this measurement would be made is still under discussion.

Although some may not agree , SCCA is a member oriented club, and as such the opinions of the members are carefully considered- especially when it comes to rule changes. On the issue of whether or not to accept the new manifold rules, two letters were received by SCCA- one was for the change and one was against. Not a great representation of the membership!

See also our separate post in the Tech Tips, Rules, and Safety Section of the Interchange requesting your input to the crb.

The Committee feels that it is imperative that members voice their opinion on this issue. If you would like the manifold rules to receive further consideration (as we have suggested), then an e-mail stating this fact is in order and it should be received by SCCA before the middle of March. Your letter must make a statement that you are of the opinion that further restrictions[should] be placed on the measured areas of the manifold and therefore, further examination of the rules is in order. If you believe that the rules are fine the way they are written, then a letter to that effect is also in order. Either way, when contacting SCCA,
( crb@scca.com) , be sure to include your membership number in your e-mail. Also, a simple statement such as: I do not like the rules” will not hold any water.

This is your opportunity to decide whether you, the member, wish to control the increasing costs of obtaining equitable parts.

Ongoing business:

Last month we asked for suggestions on how to increase awareness of open wheel racing and several responses were received. Anna and Ray Qualls posted a letter to the general membership on the Interchange , followed by a questionnaire. They received 52 responses- all positive. A five year plan has now been presented to all and it may be viewed in the General Section of the Interchange. It again asks for your opinion in the form of a survey. It is hoped that more than 52 reply to this latest effort on their part.

No other items were presented nor discussed. Next meeting is scheduled for March 25

[rphillips]

Hi Dietmar,

I find it hard to believe that only two letters were sent in regards to the proposed manifold rules. I know I sent an email to the bod and crb. Maybe I'm one of the two but I find that hard to believe. I suggest that we have an unofficial count of who sent letters to see if there is an issue with the SCCA recognizing them correctly.

Ray Phillips

[brian]

I wrote two letters myself. One early on then later on the process used on the proposal. I received feedback on the second letter weeks after writing it.

[sabre1]

I sent my E-mail on February 9 and received a response from John Bauer the same day indicating my comments would be forwarded...

-Jim

[sabre1]

BTW, I should have included this in my previous message: thanks Dietmar for your efforts here.

-Jim

[FVartist]

Add me to the list, sent in on 2/5, althought I guess, if there were only two responses some of us must not have counted or weren't relevent enough.

[smsazzy]

I also sent an email to the address listed in one of the threads.

[AJP]

Is there a recommended Subject Line that we should use when we send our email to the CRB?

Like "Change FV section 9.1.1.C.5.D.20" or something to make it so the CRB won't glance over the email?


-Andy Pastore

[CitationFV21]

Although some may not agree , SCCA is a member oriented club, and as such the opinions of the members are carefully considered- especially when it comes to rule changes. On the issue of whether or not to accept the new manifold rules, two letters were received by SCCA- one was for the change and one was against. Not a great representation of the membership!

I sent an e-mail to the Comp Board and the Board of Directors and the two local Directors. And got some confirmations. Something is not right - there had to be more than 2 (or are they just mean written, mailed letters?).

Andy's suggestion is a good one, use a common, specific subject line. I always include my SCCA # in letters or e-mails to the Comp Board or BOD.

Can someone already in contact with the Comp Board go back and confirm the numbers?

Thanks

ChrisZ
Citation FV #21

[Dave Gomberg]

The count was 23 letters received by the CRB (there may have been others that were sent to the BoD only). All but three were in support of the new rules. (One thought the rules weren't strict enough; another was in favor, but not of the late addition.)

Dave

[brian]

Dave, what was the justification for the 4/1/09 effective date? The GCR is quite clear on rule timing and it doesn't include any mid-year dates. Unless this was considered a clarification or correction, doesn't it have to go with the 01/01/xx date?

[Dave Gomberg]

The problem became evident at the Runoffs. Because it took a while to develop the re-worked wording, it couldn't be done by 1/1/09. But, the issue was considered urgent enough to address as soon as possible.

Dave

[Bob Posner]

In reply to Brian's request for justification of the 4/01/09 effective date,the response is "the problem became evident at the runoffs". I ask what problem,how did it become evident,and to whom? Once this is established, I'd like to know what requisite degree of "urgency" is ample justification for imposing a rule change/clarification/correction within mere weeks of it's initial request for input,and finally, who decides if the urgency level has been reached? Bob Posner

[FVartist]

I was one of the 3 in opposition. My reason was (1) I did not see any urgency, since there was no reasoning explained. (2) The lag time from when the problem was first discovered,Oct '08 not explained, and brought to the attention of the Vee community end of Jan '09 was too great as to assume any urgency. (3) My pocket, the way the rules were written I'm not too sure if my manifold was in compliance and I at this time can not afford a new manifold.