October Meeting

[Dietmar]

The FV Ad Hoc Committee met on October 28
Members attending: Steve Oseth, Stevan Davis, Bruce Livermore, Mike Kochanski, Dietmar Bauerle

Guest: Fred Clark

Information was shared regarding the possible acquisition of a spec manifold. We are engaged in dialogue with our Australian contacts to see how and when a manifold might become available to the Committee. Our hope is that we will see at least one, possibly two manifolds in the next few weeks.
Once in our possession, Bruce Livermore will create a CAD drawing and then the manifold will be passed on to various engine builders for evaluation on the dyno where it can be compared to existing manifolds.
Some of the initial tests conducted in Australia on the spec manifolds showed a marked improvement in horsepower. For this reason, a restrictor plate is also to be developed and will accompany the spec manifold to test its viability.
In the mean time, the current manifold rules and specifications are still being discussed by the Committee. We are in the process of collecting data to better determine variances that currently exist and thereby afford us enough information to make a recommendation for member consideration in time for the 2011 rules deadline.


GCR:
With the intent of trying to cover the concerns expressed by members, the Committee began by discussing some GCR issues and/or omissions.

It appears that a section regarding oil lines has been omitted from the current rules thereby possibly allowing oil coolers to be mounted forward of the firewall. Bruce Livermore will draft a rules clarification regarding oil lines which would restate that: all oil lines be contained to the rear of the firewall and be no longer that 12ft in length . This would not include braided or metal oil pressure lines for those still using mechanical gauges.

Discussion continued regarding the use of alternate rockers and the fact that there are other ratios available which appear identical to what is currently allowed . The GCR does call for either a 1:1 ratio or a 1.1:1 ratio rocker, yet there is no way to insure that the rocker is exactly a 1.1: 1 ratio. Some discussion centered on introducing new language to the GCR, but eventually it was decided that since there is a spec for maximum lift that no alteration/addition was needed.

A member requested the consideration of alternate spindles. A set of spindles and carriers has been ordered and will be evaluated. Our question lies with the section of the GCR which only allows for ...the same material and dimensionally identical to the original VW component. More information on these spindles will be forthcoming.

No other items were presented or discussed.

Next meeting is scheduled for November 25

[Speedsport]

Why does it seem like a spec manifold is still being railroaded through?

I thought the concensus has been the best approach is better controll over the dimensions. I have yet to have an answer to my question on how a spec manifold is going to save people money? The cost of manifolds has increased very little in the past 5 years, and that's a problem? Don't forget the cost of scapping all our existing manifolds, plus the price these spec manifolds will be selling for after dyno sorting for the 1 or 2 keepers on the upper end of the tolerance.

Again, why is replacing a $1000 part every 5-10 years so outrageous that it requires such extreme action? Who is making these decisions? Other classes must be laughing at us.

[Matt King]

I think other classes might be laughing at intake manifolds that cost nearly 25 percent of what a decent regional FV is actually worth these days!!

[hardingfv32-1]

Ia sure the other classes know nothing about our manifolds. Most of the FV competitors barely have any idea what is going on with them.

Brian

[Matt King]

You're right that they probably don't know or care, but when it is explained to them, they do laugh. "I thought FV was supposed to be a cheap class to run." Typical response.

[Doug Carter]

How many drivers complaining about manifolds are within 10 pounds of the FV legal weight minimum? How many of them realize that knocking 12 pounds off of their ass is a lot cheaper than a new, whizzy $1000 manifold?



Want 2 hp? I'll show you how. It's free, too.

[Speedsport]

[quote][/quote]
How many of them realize that knocking 12 pounds off of their ass is a lot cheaper than a new, whizzy $1000 manifold?


Exactly Doug. I went on a heavy duty diet starting in April to make sure I was at the minimum weight come September. I lost 20 lbs between April and the Runoffs, and for those who know me, there wasn't a whole lot extra to take off to begin with. But I thought it was going to come down to a drag race up the hill on the last lap, and the idea of loosing by 6 inches because I ate too much cheesecake was too much for me to handle. Those 20 lbs were worth as much as anything else I did for the race, and like you said - they were free.

[Doug Carter]

20 lbs = 2 hp (give or take)


That's why I keep my svelte F1 physique. You never know when McLaren might need a fill-in.

[problemchild]

Please explain the math behind 20 lbs equals 2 hp.

Who has 105 hp?

[Matt King]

So how about we all lose 20 pounds AND keep the old manifolds we already have?

Looking at it purely from a HP-to-weight ratio standpoint, assuming a 1025 pound car is making 60hp, the car at 1045 would need to make an additional 1.18hp to achieve the same Hp/Lb ratio.

[brian]

The last time I chimed in on this subject, I got killed, but the truth is always painful. After my experience, I think we should pass a rule outlawing young drivers and require at least one heart attack. Never mind, I'll just go back to the gym. What a concept! Put down the knife and fork and work out.

[Doug Carter]

Please explain the math behind 20 lbs equals 2 hp.

Looking at it purely from a HP-to-weight ratio standpoint, assuming a 1025 pound car is making 60hp, the car at 1045 would need to make an additional 1.18hp to achieve the same Hp/Lb ratio.

Exactly.

The rule of thumb is that for every 10-12 pounds on the car, you are giving up 1 hp. So drivers pushing 40 pounds over the 1025 lb. minimum weight are giving up approximately 4 hp. Unless you are right on the 1025 mark at the end of the race, that 1 hp bonus from one of Brian's magic manifolds is a waste of money.

i am merely wondering out loud how many of the people worried about Brian's $1200 intakes for that extra 1 hp have already cut back on the Big Macs enough to make weight?



And are there even 20 guys in the country who can put one of those manifolds to good use, anyway?

[jpetillo]

Please explain the math behind 20 lbs equals 2 hp.

Looking at it purely from a HP-to-weight ratio standpoint, assuming a 1025 pound car is making 60hp, the car at 1045 would need to make an additional 1.18hp to achieve the same Hp/Lb ratio.

Exactly.
The rule of thumb is that for every 10-12 pounds on the car, you are giving up 1 hp. So drivers pushing 40 pounds over the 1025 lb. minimum weight are giving up approximately 4 hp.

Using the fraction of weight gain over vehicle weight to be the equivalent fractional HP gain - can't be more than 0.6 HP for every 10.25 lbs (1%) - is only correct when there are no other retarding forces, like frictional losses and aerodynamic drag. For Vees, wind resistance limits your top speed, not that extra 10-20 lbs weight, but the weight loss does directly help get you out of the slower corners. It would be pretty easy to estimate increase in lap times with added weight for a given track given some data acquisition data. John

[CenDiv20]

I dont know how I do it but I usually come in at the end of the race at around 1030...

I also have 10lbs of ballast in the car. So my Miller Lite and Hot Wings diet works well, give it a try!

[Matt King]

Just because there are cars over the minimum weight and drivers incapable of exploiting a 1-2hp advantage does not make it a good idea to leave the manifold rules up to continued creative interpretation. If you put that small HP gain in the hands of those capable of exploiting its full advantage, however insignificant it may be, you simply force all the rest of the drivers in that category to spend the money to keep up. On the other hand, the drivers who are unable for whatever reason to extract that performance simply fall further behind. Is there ONE good reason to allow continued escalation in manifold development, other than to increase sales for manifold manufacturers?

[Dave]

It seems to me the newest and least experienced people in this class WHINE the most. Maybe they should get some experience keep the oil in their car's and keep them on the track.

Dave

[Matt King]

Hey Dave, I'm happy to develop what I have and learn to get the most out of it, not chase new parts in an attempt to buy more speed. I've got more experience racing than you have any clue about, if you'd like to discuss it at a future race.

[Speedsport]

Hey Dave, I'm happy to develop what I have and learn to get the most out of it

The more things that become "spec", the less you will be able to develop what you have.

[hardingfv32-1]

You don't have to buy a better manifold, you can develop it yourself. I'll even tell you how. I can help you with cylinder heads, engines, transmissions, chassis, etc. Are you up for doing all this yourself or is it smarter to just pay for some of these things? Where do you personally draw the line?

Brian

[FVartist]

Is anyone working towards the final additional dimensions for our current manifolds?

Bruce

[Matt King]

Like I said a couple of posts back, I really don't see the benefit to the class of everyone bolting on a couple of horsepower. Can someone explain it to me? Maybe you can Dave, since you think I'm "whining."

[FV80]

Is anyone working towards the final additional dimensions for our current manifolds?

Bruce

The Committee is passing about 40 emails a day about manifolds. We are TRYING very hard to come up with the best solution for the class - not ourselves or any other particular person or group. Right now, the impetus is on gathering DATA. Exactly ONE person responded to the Registry email last month with some actual measurement data on his manifold. We are currently measuring our own manifolds to use as a starting point. Anyone else that would like to contribute, just let us know. We are looking for
1). weight (preferably in oz to at least 0.1) - IF you have a capable scale.
2). bend to bend (length of the "straight" cross tube)
3). head 'face' to carb 'face' height (sit flanges on flat and measure to center of carb flange - generally 8 - 9 inches).
4). Maximum diameter of tubing in 3/4 bend (anywhere from begin bend to flange).
5). Approx rough average of all measurements of 3/4 diameter (just to know whether the max is Atypical or the measurement is pretty consistent)
6). Same Max for 1/2 side.
7). Same 'average' for 1/2 side.
8 ). Approx deviation from STRAIGHT over 12 inches of cross tube centered at down tube. (worst case direction, ignoring any 'punches' below down tube.)
9). Approx 'excess expansion' under the flanges of the downtube (if the bottom is not flat, it's been punched out by a ball - about how much? within 1/8 inch or so)
10). Max dia of down tube (start about 3/4 from flange as it has a slight taper).
11). "Average" (as above) dia of down tube.
12). Any comments related to the origin or condition of the manifold that you think might be pertinent.

Some of these are more difficult to measure than you might think, but we still need the data. This will be put into a database to come up with some average, max and min numbers. Our thinking at this time is that the numbers that were proposed at the "meeting" might be further than we need to go. The more manifolds we can get data on, the better equipped we will be to TRY to decide what's best. If you want to send us your data, please take the time to do a decent job of the measurements. Please email me directly - Steve at WedgeRacing dot com and put MANIFOLD INFO in the Subject line. tnx. We are also continuing to pursue info on a possible Spec Manifold - just to see if it's possible and/or a logical road to consider..

I understand that the CRB is having a conference call tonight - we may have more "guidance" following that meeting, but as things stand, we are still working on rules for 2011 - nothing for 2010 that we know of. Any rules CHANGES (for 2011) that the Committee decides to propose will go out for member input before being enacted or trashed.
Steve

[FVartist]

I've received only one (1) e-mail and that was about the meeting at the runoff. I have yet to receive this one pertaining to the manifold specs. Thanks and will get you the specs from the three (3) I have.

Bruce

[jpetillo]

Just because there are cars over the minimum weight and drivers incapable of exploiting a 1-2hp advantage does not make it a good idea to leave the manifold rules up to continued creative interpretation. If you put that small HP gain in the hands of those capable of exploiting its full advantage, however insignificant it may be, you simply force all the rest of the drivers in that category to spend the money to keep up. On the other hand, the drivers who are unable for whatever reason to extract that performance simply fall further behind. Is there ONE good reason to allow continued escalation in manifold development, other than to increase sales for manifold manufacturers?

Matt, we can replace manifolds with engines in your argument and the same thing holds. Most of us can't afford that killer engine and just make due. Perhaps the difference here is that a manifold is around $1K and more will go for that than put up the extra $2K for the better engine. John

[jpetillo]

Steve, thanks for the list of measurements. That helps. I'll get mine in next week.

About no one writing in, perhaps if we had a schedule of when decisions need to be made for drafts that would help get us to write in.

The amount of times I keep hearing that there won't be changes in the rules for this area in 2010 makes me think there are going to be and without member input. Is there any way that can happen?