Runoffs FV Meeting Minutes

[cendiv37]

Minutes of FV Meeting at 2009 Runoffs held Friday, Sept. 21, 4 – 6 pm
Chairman/Moderator: Fred Clark SCCA CRB
FV Committee members: Steve Davis, Bruce Livermore (scribe)
Also in attendance: Bob Lybarger (BOD), Lisa Noble (BOD), Dave Gomberg (CRB)

Agenda:
A. Intake Manifold Rules
B. Class Technology/Cost Escalation
C. Errors and Omissions in 2009 rules
D. What is the Future of Formula Vee in SCCA

A. Intake Manifold Discussion

1. Background:
a) How do we stem the tide of manifold cost and performance escalation?
b) We need to make a set of rules (or plan) we can live with that will stop the escalation.
c) Any new rules will be implemented in 2011. “Rules year” has us locked in for 2010 (applies to entire discussion, not just manifolds).

2. Driver Comment: We got to this situation due to a lack of enforcement of the “if it doesn’t say you can, you can’t rule.” (GCR reads: “If in Doubt, Don’t” -9.1.1.C.1.B)

3. Per Fred, there is no appetite within the CRB to “go backwards” and disallow what has previously been declared legal. (This is the historical SCCA position.)

4. Ron Chuck presented a set of proposed, additional dimensional controls that most of the manifold preparers present at the event had discussed off line prior to the meeting. All 2009 dimensional limits will be retained. Additional measurements include:

d) A minimum distance between the bends. 17” is proposed. How to locate the start of the bend must be determined.
e) Set a maximum tube OD in the bend areas that does not obsolete too many existing manifolds. 1.070” is suggested. Averaging vs. go/no-go discussed but no decision made.
f) Set a maximum height from plane of head flanges to top (center) of carb flange. 9-1/4” is proposed.
g) Establish a maximum horizontal (cross) tube curvature/bend dimension. Set a maximum gap (measure by drill rod dia. that can fit) between the horizontal tube and a straight edge held anywhere against the horizontal tube. A 12” straight edge was suggested. No proposed gap was suggested. This would have to be determined by measuring many existing manifolds.
h) Comment: We will need to collect a bunch of data to determine all of the above suggested dimensional limits. Per Fred, this cannot be started during this event (2009 Runoffs) due to a lack of resources and time.

5. Discussion of an earlier discussed proposal to set a limit on the total volume inside a manifold:

Comments:
a) Ron Chuck: Carb flange ID is too variable to use an internal manifold volume as a limiting measurement, at least not without all of the above suggested measurements.
b) Steve Pastore: VW Type 1 1200 Sedan, “D” series manifolds will eventually become rare or non-existent. A, B and C series manifolds may have a different internal volume due to their different construction.

6. A driver recommended that the class require the use of a “spec. manifold” that would flow better than the current “state of the art”. Discussion ensued with little “high level SCCA” or vendor (engine builder/manifold maker) support. There appeared to be some support in the audience.
Bruce Livermore suggested that the purported “problems” with the OZ Spec. manifold were due more to the switch by many drivers/teams to FV1600 than due to any problem with the manifolds themselves.

7. The use of a restrictor plate was proposed. This could be used either with the current manifolds OR with a new spec. manifold. The goal would be to reduce the influence of the manifold itself on engine performance, or to reduce flow with a higher flowing “spec. manifold”.

Comments on Spec. Manifold and/or Restrictor Plate:
a) Worries voiced about “requiring” ANY new manifold for regional/lower level drivers.
b) Restrictor plate concerns: who will measure it and how? Could it be modified to improve flow but still pass inspections?
c) There is no need to panic. We just need to add more rules to control allowed modifications.
d) Regional guys just want rules consistency: They do NOT want to absorb the cost of scrapping their “old” manifold whether for a new “high tech” manifold OR for a new spec. manifold.
e) Concern was expressed that a possible unintended consequence of a restrictor plate would lead to a “new round” of head and/or carb development that would obsolete the current “installed base” of these parts.
f) A number of manifold supplier/engine builders stated that the additional rules as proposed above would not cause much disruption as far as head/carb development.

B. Agenda Items B and D overlap so their discussion was combined

1. Link pin front beams are getting hard to find. Jennerjahn Machine has looked into fabricating replacement beams. Allowing a simple hot rolled steel shock tower could lower cost. Fiberglass “covers” could be added/required that would provide equivalent aerodynamics to the shock towers on current beams.

2. A proposal was read in part by Gary Kittel to make a commitment to keep FV “as is” for a predetermined number of years. See separate document.

3. Fred stated that SCCA Enterprises is developing proposals to manufacture crankcases, cylinder heads and transmission cases to replicate the VW parts using as nearly identical materials as possible. It was suggested (and seconded) that multiple bids must be obtained to evaluate the cost effectiveness of the Enterprises proposals.

4. Lisa Noble made a verbal proposal: maintain status quo of FV; current rules to be honored and committed to. Do not transition to alternate components such as engines, etc. This was supported by voice “vote”.

5. Counter proposal by Jeff Loughhead that we not let the class wither and die; that we remain open to considering alternatives such as electronic points, etc.

6. Mike Vrchota commented that FV was “more than a set of rules, more than the hardware”. He felt that we (the FV community and SCCA) need to promote the core elements of FV including the community cohesiveness and camaraderie, as well as the competitiveness that exists within the class.

7. Comment: FV 1200 is growing in Canada. There has been an influx of new young drivers coming out of karts and into FV 1200. Can we investigate why the Canadian series is being successful in this area while SCCA appears to be less so. Why are these young drivers choosing FV 1200? We should find out.

8. Entry fees are becoming a big impediment to participation in all classes. SCCA needs to do what it can to keep entry fees down.

9. Dean Curtis suggested that the FV community connect with the Samba community. It is an untapped pool of VW enthusiasts. We need to develop links from the known FV websites to the Samba web presence and facilitate the reverse.

10. Ideas for getting better input from the FV community on the direction of the class and proposed rules changes, etc.
How do we ignore the vocal minority and “hear” the (all too) silent majority?

11. Bob Lybarger commented that member input is (as always) far too limited. Often, only 4 – 5 letters are received regarding an issue “sent out for member input”. He stated that it often appears that SCCA hears mostly from those opposed to proposals and less from those that are in support. We need BOTH sides to submit letters stating their position on all subjects.

12. It was proposed that a list of current active SCCA FV drivers be developed and that the most active should be asked to vote on rules proposals. It was suggested that the “most active” should comprise the top ten finishers in each division, at both the national and regional levels. It was suggested that these drivers be “required” to vote on each issue under consideration and that their lack of a response (vote) on an issue would be counted as a “yes” vote on that issue. An obvious problem is getting contact information for these drivers.

13. Brian McCarthy suggested that SCCA expedite efforts to make its database of drivers more useful to the rules making bodies within SCCA by including class and contact information as part of the member/competition license data collected.
Gary Kittel suggested that fields for class(s) driven and e-mail address be added to the annual license applications submitted to SCCA to facilitate collection of this data. This data could then be used to contact interested parties when rules changes are contemplated in a class.
Lisa Noble said she will pursue this with the SCCA staff immediately.

14. Bob Lybarger suggested that all present at this meeting e-mail the CRB recommending the collection and distribution of this driver/class participation data to appropriate rulemaking bodies within SCCA.

15. Butch Deere posed the question as to whether FV drivers wanted FV to become a “scroungers” class. He said that parts are becoming more and more difficult to find through traditional channels and that this will only get worse.

C. Errors and Omissions in FV Rules in 2009 GCR:

1. 12ft length limit for oil hoses (external coolers/filters) should be reinstituted.
- OR-
Submit a request to require that all oil lines, coolers and filters must be installed to the rear of the firewall of the car.

2. Clarify the belly pan/lower bodywork rule regarding maximum 1” deviation from horizontal. There may be some confusion relative to cars with frames vs. cars with sub-frames, etc.

3. Add the word “nominally” to C.5.D.15 (rocker arm ratios).

Respectfully submitted, 10-08-2009, Bruce Livermore

[SR Racing]

Concern was expressed that a possible unintended consequence of a restrictor plate would lead to a “new round” of head and/or carb development that would obsolete the current “installed base” of these parts.

Sure. About as much as special heads for cars that are painted blue. The only effect/advantage would be the possible desire to change cam timing.

A number of manifold supplier/engine builders stated that the additional rules as proposed above would not cause much disruption as far as head/carb development.

Yep

Link pin front beams are getting hard to find. Jennerjahn Machine has looked into fabricating replacement beams. Allowing a simple hot rolled steel shock tower could lower cost. Fiberglass “covers” could be added/required that would provide equivalent aerodynamics to the shock towers on current beams.

Only the needle bearing beams are hard to find. The phonelic bearing beams are still available new. But in any case I highly doubt the above could be done "cheaply" in the US.

Fred stated that SCCA Enterprises is developing proposals to manufacture crankcases, cylinder heads and transmission cases to replicate the VW parts using as nearly identical materials as possible. It was suggested (and seconded) that multiple bids must be obtained to evaluate the cost effectiveness of the Enterprises proposals.

I can only assume this was a joke to keep the room in a good mood. Good crankcases are readily available. OEM and Aftermarket (if you needed to go that route) No one in the US is going to manufacture an Mag/Al/Si case in the small quanties that we would want. Maybe a dozen a year? Enterprises has used 300% mark-up in the past on their components. Good trans cases are getting tougher to find, but again not a heavilly use part. And again there are aftermarket trans cases available if it came to that.

RE: The restrictor plate. We have a mil-spec certified corporation that builds the FST restrictors. The are about as precision as you can find and hard anodized. They cost me $18 each and I sell them to the FST field for my actual cost. (SCCA would triple that.) (The anodizing was to prevent tampering without visual impact. But a measurement is very simple to do if required.) Of course for best HP with a restrictor you have to paint the car blue.

[VORT94]

I sure am glad my car is allready painted "blue" !

[brian]

Just a thought, the last time I rad a HOT VW mag there were several vendors making h-beams. While most were modified, I don't doubt that stock replicas could be made.

[Matt King]

Can anybody name a part for a FV that's not available from the aftermarket if we are not restricted to using stock parts from a pre-65 Beetle? All the parts I have heard being discussed as in potential short supply (spindles, beams, trans cases, engine cases, and brakes) are readily available in upgraded non-stock form. It just takes a desire to deviate from the status quo to solve any potential parts supply issue. Replicating stock parts IMO is not a viable answer. If it was cost effective for manufacturers to reproduce these parts they would already be doing so. But there is a wider market for performance oriented parts that will still fit our cars.

[Mystique Racing]

I can, drum brake backing plates are not made by any aftermarket manufacture that I know of. I don't believe that new intake manifolds are available either.

[Matt King]

But DISC brakes that fit our cars are readily available. That was exactly my point. If there are parts shortages, perhaps the answer is to upgrade to readily available and more modern parts rather than spend a ton of money having low-volume, low-demand replicas made. And it has been proven by the Australian FV group that brand-new control manifolds can be produced for a fraction of the cost of a reworked "stock" manifold.

[Mystique Racing]

Your preaching to the choir, that is why I built the Mystique M5 FST. In my mind, FST is FV............. with the addition of logical parts upgrades and logical rule upgrades, like the increase of the minimum weight. I can not make minimum weight in my M2 and I only weigh 200lbs. Over half the FV field in the SF region is 40+ pounds overweight. I know........... I could strip everything off the car, make lighter bodywork, sacrifice safety, and eventually get there but why? I can build a FST with a strong frame that has lots of side impact protection, and still have to add 30 lbs of ballast. Unfortunately, I don't think the FV and FST groups will ever agree on anything.

[cendiv37]

I just bolded a section of the minutes that some seem to have missed.

What I understood Fred to say and Dave Gomberg to agree with at the meeting was that in general the FV rules for 2010 will be the rules from 2009. All of the discussion at the meeting and since is regarding possible changes for 2011, whether it be manifolds or anything else. This is what I wrote in the minutes and posted (and have now bolded) here on the Interchange.

The apparent exception to this is that a larger (1500 cc was mentioned) extended sump will be allowed in 2010. I still waiting to see it in Fastrack, but I believe that will be in the 2010 rules.

Other than "clarifications", there will be no other changes for 2010.

As clarification, there may be something added requiring all oil lines (and coolers, filters, etc.) to remain behind the firewall. This came about because we accidentally dropped the 12 ft. limitation in the rewrite that had always pretty well precluded front mounted coolers, etc. I'm a bit foggy on whether this can be done as clarification unless we simply re-institute the 12 ft hose length limit. We're working on something here.

[SR Racing]

Open ends from the 09 Meeting: Did anyone walk away with ownership? Any status?

1. Link pin front beams are getting hard to find. Jennerjahn Machine has looked into fabricating replacement beams. Allowing a simple hot rolled steel shock tower could lower cost. Fiberglass “covers” could be added/required that would provide equivalent aerodynamics to the shock towers on current beams.

3. Fred stated that SCCA Enterprises is developing proposals to manufacture crankcases, cylinder heads and transmission cases to replicate the VW parts using as nearly identical materials as possible. It was suggested (and seconded) that multiple bids must be obtained to evaluate the cost effectiveness of the Enterprises proposals.

7. Comment: FV 1200 is growing in Canada. There has been an influx of new young drivers coming out of karts and into FV 1200. Can we investigate why the Canadian series is being successful in this area while SCCA appears to be less so. Why are these young drivers choosing FV 1200? We should find out.

9. Dean Curtis suggested that the FV community connect with the Samba community. It is an untapped pool of VW enthusiasts. We need to develop links from the known FV websites to the Samba web presence and facilitate the reverse.

10. Ideas for getting better input from the FV community on the direction of the class and proposed rules changes, etc. How do we ignore the vocal minority and “hear” the (all too) silent majority?

12. It was proposed that a list of current active SCCA FV drivers be developed and that the most active should be asked to vote on rules proposals. It was suggested that the “most active” should comprise the top ten finishers in each division, at both the national and regional levels. It was suggested that these drivers be “required” to vote on each issue under consideration and that their lack of a response (vote) on an issue would be counted as a “yes” vote on that issue. An obvious problem is getting contact information for these drivers.

13. Brian McCarthy suggested that SCCA expedite efforts to make its database of drivers more useful to the rules making bodies within SCCA by including class and contact information as part of the member/competition license data collected.
Gary Kittel suggested that fields for class(s) driven and e-mail address be added to the annual license applications submitted to SCCA to facilitate collection of this data. This data could then be used to contact interested parties when rules changes are contemplated in a class. Lisa Noble said she will pursue this with the SCCA staff immediately.