April Meeting

[Dietmar]

The FV Committee met on April 22. Members attending:
Steve Oseth, Bruce Livermore, Stevan Davis, Mike Kochanski, Dietmar Bauerle

Guest: Fred Clark

The meeting began with a discussion regarding the fact that FasTrack only referenced one letter addressing the intake manifold rules when in actuality, 48 were received. Some were duplicates and some were difficult to discern as to whether the author was in favor or opposed to the new rules. The Committee had asked that members write letters to request further study of the rules with regards to the issue of manifolds, and although MOST of the responses either hinted or actually requested a rules review, the Committee agreed that the rules should remain in effect as written as of 4-1-2009 unless a more decisive request is made by the membership.

Another consideration driving the Committee’s decision is the new RULES CALENDAR set by SCCA. Any rule changes recommended for 2010 must be submitted in writing by May 1, 2009 to allow consideration by the CRB and also provide sufficient time for member input. We felt this time constraint would not allow the Committee to gather further data and then present a proposal which would satisfy the membership.



DRY SUMP:
The majority of letters received concurred with the Committee’s concensus and were opposed to the use of dry sumps at this time . Further discussion has been halted.

WET SUMP: based on phone calls received and by dialogue on the FV Interchange, the Committee spent a considerable amount of time discussing the need for a revision of the current sump rule.

No one on the committee could rationalize the reason for the 250cc limitations but we were all in agreement that a larger sump would not have any performance advantage but could prove to be of benefit to competitors on certain tracks where data loggers have shown a serious loss of oil pressure at certain turns. A larger sump would extend the life of engines and would benefit the class.

With this in mind, a proposal is being written which would allow for a larger sump with unlimited volume provided that it fit within the boundaries of the frame rails and attaches to the original case opening.

An attempt will be made to submit this before the May 1 deadline.

No other items were brought to the Committee nor discussed.

Next meeting is scheduled for May 27

[brian]

Good work guys. I would recommend that the sump extension not extend below the frame rails and be susceptable to removal by curbs etc.

[Dietmar]

Brian:

Wording will not allow any part of the sump below the frame rails. Thanks for the input.

Dietmar

[sabre1]

Dietmar,

Thank you for posting the info for us. Can you confirm then that the manifold rules proposed in the February 09 Fastrack have been adopted? Or is the CRB still waffling on the issue?

Regarding the wet sump extension, I can foresee that these could get very large. Personally I think that a sump large enough to hold ALL the oil might hold some advantages; tapered forward, convoluted pick-up tube extension, etc. Not sure you want to leave this option wide open. Also, I don't know if there are any cars out there that don't have ANY lower frame rails, but perhaps that should be considered in your rule proposal as well.

Thanks.

-Jim

[Dave Gomberg]

The CRB passed the manifold rules changes to the BoD and they approved them at their Convention meeting as shown on page 4 of the April Fastrack. The changes became effective on 4/1/09.

Dave

[cendiv37]

Dave,

Some on the committee (and outside the committee) did not feel that the new manifold rules went far enough and were pushing for further dimensional limitations beyond those in the April Fastrack. Under consideration was the possibility of recommending further limitations to be implemented for 2010. That is what we were refering to in the minutes. The committee will not look any further into the manifold issue unless directed to do so by SCCA.

As you stated, the manifold rules now stand as published in the April Fastrack.

Note to all that don't already know: The April 2009 Fastrack rules are slightly different than and supercede those published in the February 2009 Fastrack.

[cendiv37]

A proposal for larger extended (wet) sump rules has been submitted to the CRB through the normal channels. If we understand the process, it will be considered by the CRB at their next meeting and they will decide whether to move it further through the process (forward it to the FS/RC and possibly to the FV Committee, etc.). Hopefully, some form of it will be sent out for membership input in time to get it approved for 2010.

We tried to strike a balance between flexibility and control, limiting the potential for anything radical, all the while making sure we weren't outlawing any currently legal sump.

[Dave Gomberg]

Bruce:

The sump proposal will go to the advisory committee for their next meeting. That will be mid-May. The CRB will get their take on it at our June meeting. If it goes forward, it would appear in the July Fastrack allowing time for member comment during all of July. At the August CRB meeting, a go/no-go decision would be made on sending it on to the BoD for their consideration at their August meeting.

As for the "further" manifold rules, the advisory committee recommended against them and the CRB concurred. That is a closed issue for the foreseeable future. This is noted on page 5 of the May Fastrack.

Dave

[hardingfv32-1]

So in theory the sump proposal has been "proposed" early enough to allow implementation on 1-1-10. As long as it is "passed" by say Oct-Nov it goes into effect 1-1-10. Is this correct? The May deadline just provides the time for each committee to review and vote.

Brian

[Dave Gomberg]

So in theory the sump proposal has been "proposed" early enough to allow implementation on 1-1-10. As long as it is "passed" by say Oct-Nov it goes into effect 1-1-10. Is this correct? The May deadline just provides the time for each committee to review and vote.

Brian

Yes, but barely. If the CRB sends it to the BoD for their August meeting (and it is approved), it would make it for 10/1/09 - that gives the opportunity to get things ready for the 2010 National season. If it doesn't go to the BoD for their August meeting, then it won't make it for 2010 at all. The reason is the BoD doesn't meet again until November which is too late for 2010 changes because the BoD wants the GCR to not change once the year starts.

Dave