June Meeting

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

June Meeting

Post by Dietmar »

The FV Ad Hoc Committee met on June 24
Members attending: Steve Oseth, Bruce Livermore, Dietmar Bauerle

Guest: Fred Clark

Old topic: Extended oil sump.

The FSR Committee met last week and discussed the extended oil sump proposal submitted by Bruce Livermore. The FSR Committee agreed to the request and the proposal will appear in Fastrak for member input.



New (old) topic: A letter was received from a member requesting that consideration be given to alternate pistons with ring lands (grooves) which differ from “stock 1200” dimensions. The basis for the request is that there are Chinese pistons and cylinders which are cheaper than any OE pistons. However, some of them appear not to meet the dimensional requirements of the stock 1200 with regards to the size and location of the ring lands.
Although cheaper in price than what is currently available, the quality of these pistons is also in question.
At this time, it is the opinion of the Committee that there be no change to the piston requirements as currently specified in the GCR.



With old and new business concluded, there was discussion about the desirability of split starts when FV is combined with another single class race groups. A request for this action by an individual or small group of drivers many times may be ignored by the chief steward and race organizers. The chief steward will sometimes even require the consensus of all drivers which can be difficult to achieve both politically and logistically. However, this effort will usually persuade even the most reluctant steward.

No other topics were presented or discussed.

Next meeting scheduled for July 22
sharplikestump
Posts: 183
Joined: January 12th, 2009, 2:28 pm

Re: June Meeting

Post by sharplikestump »

I find your comments on the Chinese piston/cyl. sets somewhat troubling.
I have used dozens of these sets over the years with satisfaction. If you are sincerely concerned about the quality, please rest easy. As much as it pains me to say this (I am part German, and to the best of my knowlege have no Chinese blood running through me, nor do I like much if anything about that country), I find the quality to be superior to any other P/C sets that I have used over the last 40 years. The last batch of K/S sets were some of the worst sets that I had seen....Glass hard, taking hours to hone, out of round, and varying in length.
Then there is the issue of actually being able to purchase sets when I need them. What are we supposed to do when we need them and they are not available?
Next issue is the price. When money is tight, it is much easier to let the customer know that I can install a set of the China P/Ls for less than 1/2 of the others, especially since there is much less time in making them right for use.
So the ring grooves are 1/2mm narrower. All this does is cause the ring pack to be compressed lower on the piston. How is that an advantage? Although it is slight, it DROPS the c.r. How does it set with you if we open up the grooves to the 2.5mm spec? Are the grooves not "previously machined surfaces"? Does that not allow us to re-machine them? The GCR states that the pistons must be of "identical dimensions". Do you realize how much the different brands vary? Take a few measurements, and you will find that dimensions such as the distance from the pin centerline to the groove locations vary significantly from brand to brand. Nor are all of the pistons identical in the materials they use. Some have steel reinforcements while others do not. The contours of the skirts, oil drain holes/slots, interiors, and clip grooves, etc. vary. If you can show me an "official original" piston, I could make a case that there is not one single legal FV engine in use today.
The biggest difference I see in using these sets is fitting a thinner spacer to accompany the ring. If you want to get technical, I guess you could get down on all of the later style "full circle" fins on German and Brazillian jugs, whereas the Chinese units use the original "cookie cutter" design.
Ohh yeah....there IS another difference that comes to mind: The Chinese pistons are light enough that we don't have to kick out an additional $140 for inferior piston pins to get the weight down. These pins are not only undersize and wear fast, they are not even available since the company has gone out of business.

When I see a field of 19 Vees at the June Sprints instead of the usual 40 to 50 plus, the idea of driving up the cost of a rebuild, along with demanding components that we don't even know we can obtain, does not strike me as a prudent move. I hope you will reconcider.
Mike Palermo Jr.
Peak Performance Racing
JimR
Posts: 91
Joined: August 21st, 2006, 6:30 pm

Re: June Meeting

Post by JimR »

I have read these reports from the ad-hoc FV committee over the last several months and right or wrong I am going to voice my opinion on this. You can blast me any way you want, but I don't agree with establishment of this committee. While I would suggest this group of individuals is well intentioned and truely care about the future of FV they do not represent my voice in any matter, nor do I think their recommendations should be established as representing the voice of the FV community at large. This newest topic if it even is an issue should be among the recognized engine builders and the CRB, not among a group of self established committee members. Moreover having been a participant of this forum for several years I find it interesting that the list of FV drivers who actually participate is relatively few. Working from that premise, one has to ask what and whose interest is being represented? If this position makes me an a target, go ahead take your shots at me, because it isn't going to change how I approach FV racing.

Jim Regan
A 30 year veteran of FV racing
SOseth
Posts: 47
Joined: June 26th, 2006, 9:24 am

Re: June Meeting

Post by SOseth »

Mike;

It seems to me that the rules as written for FV pistons is quite vague. You can use or have made (in my opinion) any piston you want as long as certain dimensions are upheld. That includes ring land measurements, particularly in relation to the wrist pin as that is really the only constant we have anymore. If the Chinese piston ring lands are .5 narrow and you wish to machine the grooves to the proper dimension then there is nothing wrong with that. I don't agree with the idea of opening up the piston specs any more than they already are.

SteveO
cendiv37
Posts: 386
Joined: June 25th, 2006, 7:29 pm

Re: June Meeting

Post by cendiv37 »

Ya gotta love the Vee community. It is the very definition of diversity (of opinion).

The committee suggests we don't change the rules: some cry out for a group crucifixion because the class is dying.
The committee suggests we change a rule: some cry out that we are killing the class with all these rules changes.
The best part is that it's often the same (often few) people yelling loudest either way :shock:

Ya just gotta love it.

Regarding the pistons: The FV committee is very aware of the tenuous nature of the piston rules. A series of past rules changes and the progression of OEM "replacement" piston suppliers used over many years has left things pretty muddy. Still, the ring groove width is one thing we can hang our hats on. Should we change it? Maybe, but lets have that discussion and then make the decision rather than react immediately to a couple of requests (motivated by what?) for new piston or piston ring rules. Some want to run super-thin "motorcycle" rings for performance reasons. Some already are doing so within the rules. Some just want to allow use of the cheapest pistons they can get their hands on even if those pistons don't meet what is still clear in the rules. Maybe the cheapest route is to simply make the pistons "free" except for weight and a few dimensions.

Let's talk about it for a bit before we jump one way or the other (or not).

As far as the KS pistons and cylinders, it seems some engine builders are happy for the return to cylinder material that is "hard to hone". They think the cylinders will last much longer in use before they need to be replaced. Other engine builders don't like those "hard cylinders" for whatever reason. To each their own...

Lastly, at this point we have 3 FV suppiers in VERY high places in SCCA. The FV Committee actually has NO official say in SCCA's rules making process. You as a driver/member DO have an official role IF you write letters and respond to the stuff you see in FasTrack.

The FV committee does act as a sounding board when SCCA asks us for input and we do try to be a liason to the rest of the FV community - drivers, suppliers, crew etc. - in reading the tea leaves as to what's best for the class. However, if you don't talk to us, we won't know what you're thinking. Believe me there was plenty of diversity of opinion within the committee on the intake manifold issue and there is/was plenty on things like dry sumps, pistons, etc.

We ain't perfect, but we do what we can...
Bruce
cendiv37
sharplikestump
Posts: 183
Joined: January 12th, 2009, 2:28 pm

Re: June Meeting

Post by sharplikestump »

Steve,
I appreciate your response and your attitude in this matter. Obviously, rules are put in place for a reason. Having said that, I feel other factors are involved, such as availability, cost, and if any change such as using the narrower grooves as are,or opening them to the original dimension is subject to being corrupted, resulting in something that had not been foreseen.
For example, you mention your concidering the making of pistons being an option. This is an option that I see as having great potential of being corrupted to a degree that makes all other pistons obsolete, and therefore I would be totally against it. If you tell me that I can build a custom piston, I assure you that by trimming the cylinders, decking the block, and if necessary, installing offset rod bushings, I can then resurface my custom pistons, lopping off most of these pistons very thick deck until I have the top ring at the very top of the piston. At this time, I simply don't see the need to open this potential can of worms. If the time comes when it may be necessary, I would be in favor of their being a piston made that was available to all competitors, as opposed to several of us coming up with a series of the latest "must have demon tweak". Again, I just don't see a need for going this route at this time.
Of course, being a builder, this topic is of interest to me. However, these are just my opinions, and I am very interested in hearing what others think.
Mike
hardingfv32-1
Posts: 1014
Joined: December 1st, 2006, 8:01 pm

Re: June Meeting

Post by hardingfv32-1 »

The ad-hoc FV committee has no greater standing with the CRB or Board than an individual member. The CRB Formula sub committee will ask the ad-hoc FV committee for help with rule formulation on the assumption they have a little more expertise than the CRB. It is easier for the CRB.

The fact is that the rules are highly influenced by those put out the effort to do so. This is politics and yes, we all have an agenda. If you want your opinion heard you must make the political effort.

The ad-hoc FV committee is going a fine job.

Brian
VORT94
Posts: 41
Joined: December 18th, 2007, 5:46 pm

Re: June Meeting

Post by VORT94 »

Can you post Bruce's proposal on the extended oil sump for us all to see? Thanks
cendiv37
Posts: 386
Joined: June 25th, 2006, 7:29 pm

Re: June Meeting

Post by cendiv37 »

I'll post the proposed sump extension wording tonight from home when I'm sure I have the version I submitted. As I understand it, it will be out for membership review, as I wrote it, in the next FastTrack.
Bruce
cendiv37
SOseth
Posts: 47
Joined: June 26th, 2006, 9:24 am

Re: June Meeting

Post by SOseth »

sharplikestump wrote:Steve,
I appreciate your response and your attitude in this matter. Obviously, rules are put in place for a reason. Having said that, I feel other factors are involved, such as availability, cost, and if any change such as using the narrower grooves as are,or opening them to the original dimension is subject to being corrupted, resulting in something that had not been foreseen.
For example, you mention your concidering the making of pistons being an option. This is an option that I see as having great potential of being corrupted to a degree that makes all other pistons obsolete, and therefore I would be totally against it. If you tell me that I can build a custom piston, I assure you that by trimming the cylinders, decking the block, and if necessary, installing offset rod bushings, I can then resurface my custom pistons, lopping off most of these pistons very thick deck until I have the top ring at the very top of the piston. At this time, I simply don't see the need to open this potential can of worms. If the time comes when it may be necessary, I would be in favor of their being a piston made that was available to all competitors, as opposed to several of us coming up with a series of the latest "must have demon tweak". Again, I just don't see a need for going this route at this time.
Of course, being a builder, this topic is of interest to me. However, these are just my opinions, and I am very interested in hearing what others think.
Mike

Mike,
Frankly I didn't state that I was interested in making a custom piston. I only stated that in my opinion the rules on pistons in FV are vague at best and as such could be subject to interpretation. I think the FV community has made their voice clear over the years that the committee has existed. While that conservative approach might not necessarily be to my liking, the rest of the committee and I must respect the view of the majority. I happen to like the KS piston and cylinders. I believe in the long run they will be a more cost effective alternative to existing options. Also while pistons can be readily made, cylinders are another matter. We will still have to order piston and cylinder sets in order to have cylinders available. In that light I am against changing the rules on piston configuation. So...if you machine the 2mm Chinese ring lands to the approprate dimension, I will have no qualms about that.

SteveO
cendiv37
Posts: 386
Joined: June 25th, 2006, 7:29 pm

Re: June Meeting

Post by cendiv37 »

OK Nuby, Here is the whole letter I submitted to the CRB regarding the larger wet sumps.
The requested new wording is in bold.

Requestor: Bruce Livermore
SCCA Member #: 67845_1
FV driver since 1995, SCCA member since 1978
Member LOL Region

Class affected: Formula Vee

Reference: GCR 9.1.1.C.5.D.29 (FV oil sump extension)
Reference: April Fastrack request for member input on whether to allow dry sumps in FV

I request that 9.1.1.C.5.D.29 be rewritten as follows:


An oil sump extension may be fitted to the engine. In operation, all movement of oil and crankcase air in and out of the extension shall be through the original oil strainer cover opening of the engine case. No additional openings in the extension are allowed above the plane of the oil strainer flange of the engine case. The oil pump pickup pipe may be extended into the sump extension. Any baffling is allowed within the extension and may extend between the engine case and the sump extension through the original oil strainer opening. Any sump extension with an internal volume exceeding 250cc may not extend below the frame rails of the chassis when viewed from the side. Accumulators (Accusump) may be fitted.


Justification for the proposed rule change:

There is currently a severe sensitivity to engine oil level in FV engines: Fill it too low and you risk blowing up the engine, fill it too high and you dump some of the oil back on the track. Increasing the sump capacity will save engines and reduce the costs to compete. Improved tire adhesion and brake performance have made this an even a larger problem in recent years.

The proliferation of data loggers has allowed drivers to document the loss of oil pressure under certain braking and cornering conditions. In particular, complete loss of oil pressure has been documented in turn 6 at Heartland Park and at turn 5 at Road America. The traditional "fix" for this problem is to run a higher oil level in the engine. This "fix" has multiple negative consequences including increased oil loss through the breathing system and out the front crank pulley opening as well as reduced horsepower due to "frothing" of the oil.


Currently the sump extension is limited to 250cc and must remain within the horizontal boundary of the original oil strainer cover. The pump displacement of an FV pump is approximately 11 cc per pump revolution, or 5.5 cc per crank revolution. Therefore a FV engine pumps about 95 cc per second at 1000 engine rpm. This translates to between 425 cc/sec and 615 cc/sec in the engine's normal operating range (4500 to 6500 RPM). Thus the 250 cc's in the current extension lasts less than 1/2 second on the track. This provides very little safety margin. Increasing the volume of oil held in the extension would increase this safety margin.

Increasing the volume of the sump extension would allow an adequate amount of oil to be held lower in the crankcase yet still cover the pickup under hard braking and cornering conditions. This would reduce the sensitivity to oil level, providing a larger operating window between starvation and frothing/breathing problems. Unlike a dry sump system, increasing the sump extension volume would provide no performance gain, but would increase the life expectancy of FV engines, easily covering the cost of the new, larger sump extension.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.

Bruce Livermore 67845_1


The letter was submitted April 27, a couple days after our April FV committee meeting and after first circulating it amongst the committee members for input. At the time we had been told that May 1 was the drop dead date for rules consideration for 2010. I thought a very specific and complete rewording was the best way to expedite the process as much as possible. At this point there is probably some time for additional discussion of the exact wording but the crb is still trying to tie things up earlier than usual.
Bruce
cendiv37
Matt King
Posts: 304
Joined: December 23rd, 2008, 1:44 pm

Re: June Meeting

Post by Matt King »

Is this under consideration for a 2009 change if approved, or will it have to wait until the 2010 rules?
hardingfv32-1
Posts: 1014
Joined: December 1st, 2006, 8:01 pm

Re: June Meeting

Post by hardingfv32-1 »

2009 is basically set or closed, this would be for 2010.

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

Re: June Meeting

Post by jpetillo »

Bruce,

The point you made about the 250 cc's getting sucked up in 1/2 a second should open some eyes and make the powers that be not hesitate to do what we want. That and the data acquisition points should be convincing.

I'm not interested in turning this into a technical discussion, but I'm curious about how the "11 cc per pump revolution" was measured or determined? Was it a free open-pipe measurement, or was it the flow rate when the system is pressurized? Is it that the oil will just blow through a bypass once pressure is reached, so the suck-up rate is relatively unaffected and the free flow rate is close? I'm not sure I'd believe that, but is that what the thinking was?

Thanks, John
cendiv37
Posts: 386
Joined: June 25th, 2006, 7:29 pm

Re: June Meeting

Post by cendiv37 »

John,

I used a gear displacement calculator available online here:

http://www.metaris.com/hydCal/dispmeasure.asp

or here:

http://www.unwinhydraulic.co.uk/example ... cement.pdf

They come out pretty close. The 1/2 second is at about 4500 rpm if I remember correctly. It only gets worse from there.
Bruce
cendiv37
SR Racing
Posts: 1205
Joined: June 24th, 2006, 1:58 pm

Re: June Meeting

Post by SR Racing »

jpetillo wrote:I'm not interested in turning this into a technical discussion, but I'm curious about how the "11 cc per pump revolution" was measured or determined? Was it a free open-pipe measurement, or was it the flow rate when the system is pressurized? Is it that the oil will just blow through a bypass once pressure is reached, so the suck-up rate is relatively unaffected and the free flow rate is close? I'm not sure I'd believe that, but is that what the thinking was?

Thanks, John
It looks like th formula is just based upon displacement, so "open flow" is what is calculated. The 1/2 second is certainly a VERY worse case scenario, but even at 5 times that, it's something to be concerned about.

On data that we have looked we have seen quick drop outs to 5 and 6 lbs in some corners. Actually that is acceptable at an idle but typically you get right back on the throttle at the corner exit and at full torque that low of a presssure hurts. <g> BTW, on a gauge, you might see it only go to ~15lbs since it's not fast enough.
brian
Posts: 1348
Joined: June 26th, 2006, 12:31 pm

Re: June Meeting

Post by brian »

I was the person that asked for a clarification on the Chinese pistons. I asked for the clarification because I wrote a letter to the CRB requesting some latitude in ring land size to eliminate the cost of expensive spacers. My request was denied. The rules are very clear to me that aftermarket parts must be demensionally identical to the OEM parts. Not too vague for me. Pistons can be machined to be balanced or reduced to the listed minimum weight, but reducing the size of the ring land is not authorized. I have absolutely no problem with reducing costs, that's why I asked for opening of the ring land rules, but a rule change or tech bulletin is required to legalize the Chinese P&C assemblies. Truth is, I'd like to use the Chinese stuff myself!

While I don't always agree with our committee, I will defend to the death, their exisistance. Without the ad hoc committee, we would forced to trust those who may not understand our issues or rely on only one or two voices. I say that with all respect to Fred Clark and Bob Lybarger.
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.
sharplikestump
Posts: 183
Joined: January 12th, 2009, 2:28 pm

Re: June Meeting

Post by sharplikestump »

Hey Brian,
With all due respect, I have to take exception with a couple of your last statements.
When you state the "dimensionally identical" rule, which piston are you talking about? When I check several 40 hp, 77mm pistons, I find a range on what I would concider "critical dimensions", such as the thickness of the deck, the distance from pin c'line to the deck as well as to the top ring groove. (I even see this between early and late K/S units). As far as I am concerned, this latter dim. is probably the most critical.
Have we not been reducing the size of the ring land with spacers for the last 30 or more years?
As to comparing durability, I find that I have to replace pistons much more frequently that jugs, which I have seen last many seasons with less than .001 wear.
As to the cost, I find the P/L/ring package to be the only area of the engine that has actually decreased in price. Probably the only item on the entire car!
Does anyone know if there are any P/L sets other than the Chinese even available today, or are we all waiting and hoping?
If I wanted 10 sets today, could I even get them?
Your thoughts?
sharplikestump
Posts: 183
Joined: January 12th, 2009, 2:28 pm

Re: June Meeting

Post by sharplikestump »

Oiling question
Is anyone running an accusump, and if so, what are your impressions?
thanks.
SR Racing
Posts: 1205
Joined: June 24th, 2006, 1:58 pm

Re: June Meeting

Post by SR Racing »

We have tested them..

They fix the oil pressure loss problem. However, the do require additional plumbing and space. We sell 1 quart systems that are fine for a Vee.

http://sracing.com/Store/FV_Stuff/FV_Stuff.htm (about 3/4 down the page in the "Misc. Hydraulics and Throttle section"

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

Re: June Meeting

Post by brian »

I guess I have to say that just because some aftermarket stuff is out of spec doesn't provide justification for major changes in future parts. My rub was that the specific item I had asked the CRB for, and denied, turned up in the Chinese P&C. Our class has proven very inovative in getting around stock parts with spacers, bolt on mods and such, so the use of spacers in stock pistons is not an issue. Making pistons with smaller lands is. It's like making h-beams with negative camber. We can use offset bushing, but making an h-beam with dimensional camber would be another thing. I have no problem with a tech bulletin authorizing the use of these P&C's it would be a lot easier than writing a rule and could be done nest month.
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.
Post Reply