October Meeting

[cendiv37]

We really need any information we can get as soon as we can get it. With the new "rules year" being used by SCCA, a rules change for 2011 really needs to be to the CRB for consideration by May/June so there is time to put it out for member input and try to have it final by August or so. It seems early, but that's what they'd like and we're trying to comply.

Hey, it's the "off season" but not so late that the shop is snowed in. So get out there, pull that manifold, measure it and send the data to Steve or any committee member.

From an earlier thread on the rules year implications, Dave Gomberg responding to me and then Brian Harding on the sump rules:

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.

hardingfv32-1 wrote: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.


Bottom line: the time to supply manifold info is now.

[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?

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

So the guy with the better engine has a couple HP on you. He buys a better manifold. Now he has even more HP. So you buy the better manifold and you are back where you started. What have you gained, other than both guys spending a grand on manifolds?

[FV80]

Matt,
That's a good question. The only thing that I see is that some people will drop out of the class rather than spend that money. I'm not sure what they will do then, because racing by nature costs MONEY, but the less we HAVE to spend to stay "in the neighborhood", I think, the better off we are. What would be YOUR proposal for stopping this process (having to buy a new manifold every year or 3)??
Steve

[Matt King]

My "proposal" is to support what the committee is trying to do to put a cap on this, so we are NOT buying new manifolds every year or two. I would like to see what progresses with the spec manifold idea too. I certainly don't support the idea that everyone should spend money on new manifolds just to raise the level of parity.

[Speedsport]

Who is buying a new manifold every year or two? I've been involved in FV's for 15 years now. In that time I've purchased 3 manifolds. I've had as many FV's as I've had manifolds!

[hardingfv32-1]

This is motor racing. You MUST spend money to get better equipment. It is an endless part of the game. Steve just got a new car. Based on Runoff performance, would it have been wiser and cheaper for him to buy a new manifold?

I will agree that it would not hurt to illuminate one source of additional costs. That makes complete sense.

Please answer this... How are additional rules/dimensions going to make a Monster Manie any cheaper? I will just craft something new around what ever rules are developed. What are the chances of the other manifold makers keeping up with my skills when you make the challenge more difficult for them. They are not able to do it know, or why would we be changing the rules? My customers want something better than the competition and are willing to pay for it. They are committed to winning.

Brian
Monster Manies

[brian]

MIke and Brian are correct in saying that things wont change. There's always someone with a big fat wallet trying to spend to the front. If you think manifolds are out of control, think of all those folks who sold their competitive vees and bought Vortecs? Wanna ban new chassis? 33 years in vees and I've bought 3 manifolds. I agree with effective rules and the manifold paragraphs do need help and will support anything the committee issues.

[G.B.]

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.

Wouldn’t it be simpler to state that the oil cooler must be sited behind the firewall and leave it at that? With the position of the oil cooler limited, the ‘no more than 12 feet of oil line’ rule seems redundant.

Or is there an advantage to running more than 12 feet of oil line?


Guy Bellingham

[hardingfv32-1]

What does it matter where the oil cooler is located? Do any other classes have such a restriction?

Brian

[jpetillo]

Matt,
That's a good question. The only thing that I see is that some people will drop out of the class rather than spend that money. I'm not sure what they will do then, because racing by nature costs MONEY, but the less we HAVE to spend to stay "in the neighborhood", I think, the better off we are. What would be YOUR proposal for stopping this process (having to buy a new manifold every year or 3)??
Steve

Steve, I agree - that is a good question on Matt’s part, but the solution would hardly stop with the subject of manifolds. I think you can show that the arguments Matt was using against the better manifold could be used to not allow better engines. But we do allow better, more expensive engines that make more power and there are no complaints.

What Matt said is right, of course. But in his earlier response I can still swap the word manifold for engine and the conclusion is... “What have you gained, other than both guys spending a grand on engines?” And that would be just as good a point.

I’m not arguing that Matt is wrong, but I’m concerned that we’re concentrating on only one component when there are many other components that we can make the same argument about.

I also agree with Matt that we should let the current manifold rules changes continue on the path that has started and see where it goes. That is the solution to the manifold-a-year problem.


Brian, I’m always impressed that you are willing to outright say what you are going to do in response. It shakes some people up.

What people should know is that Brian is doing what any other vendor does – react to rules changes and try to make their products better than the competition’s. He’s helping us understand the response to rules changes from the vendor’s perspective. We should listen.

John

[jpetillo]

Wouldn’t it be simpler to state that the oil cooler must be sited behind the firewall and leave it at that? With the position of the oil cooler limited, the ‘no more than 12 feet of oil line’ rule seems redundant.

Or is there an advantage to running more than 12 feet of oil line?

Guy Bellingham

I agree with Guy's question. Before we decide to change the rule we need to understand why it was decided to write the rule in the first place. I can't believe the rules makers would have said A when they meant B. There was more to it. I'm guessing it was a safety issue with running oil through the cockpit. I can see that there would be a problem with the type of "hose" run through the driver area, and we can address that by stating the type of hose to make it safe - like we do for fuel lines.

John

[FVartist]

When the rules were rewritten to streamline it a few years back, this portion was unintentionally left out. I think they are just putting it back to the way it was originally written. I would suspect there were some that took advantage of this accidental omission and will speak out.

Bruce

[cendiv37]

Bruce is right. The issue on the oil cooler location come up because in the rules rewrite of 2008, we dropped the 12 ft. limitation in oil line length. We felt it didn't need to be there anymore. It is a leftover from the rule change that allowed the use of an external oil filter but was very careful not to allow any additional oil cooling or capacity. I don't know when this was changed from the original rules but in 1965, nothing but baffling inside the case was allowed - not even a sump extension. By 1978, an external filter and the 250 cc extended sump was allowed. The '78 rules specifically state that the oil lines were limited to be: [flexible unfinned, 1" max OD lines, maximum length 12 ft.]. It also stated that "All components must be contained within the body and behind the firewall."

By 1980, an external cooler was allowed. This rule was written as an addition to the existing rules (as were most until the 2008 rewrite) so the filter and sump extension rules remained as in 1978. The only connection to the filter rule was that the cooler and filter lines had to total no more that 12 ft total. The cooler itself had to be "mounted completely inside a plumb line extending downward from the outermost edge of the coachwork." Note: nothing about the firewall here.

In 1994, accumulators (Accusump) were allowed for the first time. The words "Accumulators (Accusump) may be fitted." were added to the section on sump extensions. Note: no connection to the oil filter lines and their limited length.

The rules remained this way through 2007, that is, until the rewrite. The committee tried to streamline and consolidate the oil system stuff as best we could. We felt the limitations on hose diameter and finning were not needed since oil coolers were free. We also thought the 12 ft. length limit was not needed. The functional change between 2007 and 2008 was that now oil lines were unrestricted (including length) except as required under the general "Cars and Equipment Rules" - 9.3.27 which requires certain kinds of lines be used for "all fuel, water and oil lines ... that pass though or into the drivers compartment".

Note again that in 2007, the oil cooler location was not limited to be behind the firewall, only the filter and it's associated lines. That did not change with the rewrite. The 12 ft. total oil line length was the only thing that functionally limited oil cooler location. I think most people thought that the rules required that the cooler be behind the firewall. They never did. Only the lines to the filter and the filter itself were so limited. If oil lines were shared between oil filter and cooler... who knows? But it was clear that the the filter and cooler lines must not exceed 12 ft. total.

After the 2008 rewrite, someone (who has a knack for reading the rules and taking full advantage ) showed up at the FV B-day party with a front mounted oil cooler. Only then did anyone wonder "how is that allowed?"

At the FV meeting at the Runoffs, the committee was asked to rewrite the rules to require that the cooler be restricted to be behind the firewall "like it used to be". Well, it never was thus restricted. A return to the 2007 status would require a return of the 12 ft. limitation. We've discussed this and have for now decided that since the accumulator lines and location are unrestricted (always were), why not the cooler location?

At this point, the FV Committee has "passed" on requesting a change from the 2008/2009 rules on oil coolers, filters or accumulators. If the FS/RC or CRB wants to re-institute the 12 ft rule (a legitimate rules clarification) OR add the limitation that the cooler must be behind the firewall (a rule CHANGE), we won't fight it.

[brian]

I think the location of the oil cooler does matter. Our cars are small and a failure of a oil cooler mounted in front of, or near the driver, could result in some serious burns.

[remmers]

you could also say that you need a firewall between the oil cooler and driver. that would reduce/remove risks from cracked front mount oil coolers.

[cendiv37]

Like I said, the rules have never required the cooler to be anywhere but "inside the plumb line" of the coachwork. Maybe that was not the intent, but that was the way they were written.

The rule we dropped was the 12 ft. rule. This limit did not apply to the accumulator whose location was never specified. So oil lines have been allowed in the drivers compartment since 1994. One difference: an oil cooler requires 2 lines, an accumulator one.

We can work to make a change if the membership or CRB wants. We could also re-institute the 12 ft rule as a clarification which brings us back to 2007 which band-aids the issue. As suggested, we could also require some kind of specific barrier between the oil lines and the drivers compartment probably with a drainage requirement as well.

It's just not clear cut.

[jpetillo]

Bruce, thanks for the detailed response. It's good to know the history. It sounds like a safety concern was the issue and that of oil being up front. I know we put our batteries and brake reservoirs up front in the nose without much protection - there can't be a worse place for that, too. The battery acid may not be combustible, but the brake fluid is. For me, the only place I have room for an accumulator or anything else is up front.

John

[hardingfv32-1]

If a forward mounted oil cooler is so dangerous, why has it not been addressed by SCCA before? 50 years of SCCA racing and I don't thing there are any restrictions within ANY class about the placement of oil or water coolers. Some FF use the frame for water lines. I believe those frame members actually travel through the driver compartment!

This is a lame reason for a change. Just reinstate the 12' rule. You can't get to the nose area with 12' of hose.

Brian

[Matt King]

Whether it's a safety or performance concern, any new rule should be clear in its intent.

[brian]

Back in the day, there was a philosophy to seperate fluids and drivers. There were many drivers seriously burnt from fluids. There aren't many formula cars with radiators in the nose any more. The rules have evolved to attempt to remove this injury risk to drivers. Even the oil pressure line for direct reading gauges has to be metal to prevent hot oil from hitting the driver. I vaguely remember a vee that was turned away at Runoff tech for a front mounted cooler. I think it was a Predator. The contention then was a safety issue.

John, like the rest of us, you may not have a lot of room in a vee, but the GCR does require a marine enclosure for front mounted vented batteries. GCR 9.1.1C.3.A.10 page 193. Frankly, I don't think I'd put a gell cell up there either.

[hardingfv32-1]

Intent can only be applied to rules when it is clearly stated in the rules themselves. Even then they are subject to interpretation. There was never any intent of safety stated in the rules surrounding the FV oil system components. After 40 or so years, we have no idea what was behind the rules formulation. As such the rules are what they read, with no requirement to guess intent.

Are FV competitors more ignorant about safety than other SCCA competitors that they have to be told what is safe? SCCA has general rules that seem to serve all the other class very well on this subject.

Brian

[Matt King]

As such the rules are what they read, with no requirement to guess intent.

Exactly, so if there is a desire to disallow front mounted oil coolers with a new rule, it should clearly state that coolers are not allowed at the front of the car, or ahead of the firewall, or whatever the restriction is. But the prohibition shouldn't come in through the back door by limiting the length of the oil lines. If the CRB thinks it's unsafe to have coolers in any specific location, just say that.

[jpetillo]

John, like the rest of us, you may not have a lot of room in a vee, but the GCR does require a marine enclosure for front mounted vented batteries. GCR 9.1.1C.3.A.10 page 193. Frankly, I don't think I'd put a gell cell up there either.

Yes, you're about the container. I agree about the gel cell, too - wouldn't be pretty.

[butchdeer]

I was around when the initial 12' rule was made. The intent was to limit the oil cooling capacity when adding a remote oil filter. When remote oil coolers were allowed the need to limit the cooling capacity became a moot point but the 12' rule stayed because it was there and nobody seemed to care. Leve it be and give the option of remote oil cooler and filter placement to the designers of future cars.
Butch Deer