The FV Ad Hoc Committee met on January 27,2010
Members attending: Steve Oseth, Stevan Davis, Bruce Livermore, Mike Kochanski, Dietmar Bauerle
Shortly after our last meeting we received the much anticipated spec manifold from Australia. Although we were given less than a month to evaluate, we were able to share the manifold with quite a number of engine builders and manifold suppliers.
Tests proved that the spec manifold would produce more HP than any current 1200 VW manifold, so restrictor plates of various sizes and shapes were produced for testing purposes.
Using a restrictor plate, we were able to come up with a combination which roughly matched the overall performance of current manifolds both on the flow bench and on the dyno. Both the bore size and configuration of the restrictor plate affects the engine performance. Initial tests also indicated that minimal jetting changes were needed.
A cad drawing has been created and it, along with the spec manifold, was sent to a manufacturing facility to get an estimate cost of production. Preliminary estimate of $450 was given with the cost decreasing with more units made. Other manufacturers will be contacted in the upcoming weeks to obtain more estimates.
The Committee feels that in order for a spec manifold to be accepted, it must appeal to the membership not only with regards to cost but also must have a performance advantage over any 1200 VW manifold currently in use. We are moving forward with the concept of a spec manifold on the assumption that the membership is in favor of this and we welcome and strongly encourage any comments before our next meeting.
The remainder of the meeting was devoted to the current manifold rules . We have received data on 124 manifolds and we graciously thank those who have made the effort to provide us with data. We continue to examine and analyze the wealth of data compiled by Bruce Livermore, and we will try to provide acceptable measurements which will not obsolete nor make too many current manifolds illegal- yet at the same time, try to control costs to all.
No other items were presented or discussed.
Next meeting scheduled for February 24.
January meeting
Re: January meeting
Maybe this wasn't the place for it, but there is a lot of data apparently available but not presented.
1. What were actual flow numbers on the tests? (@ what flow pressures and methods of test.)?
2. What was the base line HP and Torque measurements (with graphs for full RPM range)? (and correction factors)
3. Assuming the dyno tests were done on a brake dyno, what was the acceleration rate (RPM/sec) (up and/or down) on the dyno tests?
4. What was the comparison actual air flows in CFM during the DYNO test.
5. BSFC taken?
6. Who did the tests? Will others be able to test?
7. Who are the bids being requested from? (and some specs on the restrictor. Aluminum, hard anodized, serial numbered, etc.)
1. What were actual flow numbers on the tests? (@ what flow pressures and methods of test.)?
2. What was the base line HP and Torque measurements (with graphs for full RPM range)? (and correction factors)
3. Assuming the dyno tests were done on a brake dyno, what was the acceleration rate (RPM/sec) (up and/or down) on the dyno tests?
4. What was the comparison actual air flows in CFM during the DYNO test.
5. BSFC taken?
6. Who did the tests? Will others be able to test?
7. Who are the bids being requested from? (and some specs on the restrictor. Aluminum, hard anodized, serial numbered, etc.)
Re: January meeting
I think that Jim has some excellent questions. While I thought this might be a spec manifold might be a good idea when I first heard about it, I have now changed my mind because I think there are too many unanswered questions. Not about the testing but all the "what ifs" that we can't answer yet. Such as: What if the manufacturer suddenly raises the price and we can't find anyone else to make it for $450. What if the manifolds don't flow within 1% of each other? What if it is found that changes to the heads, carbs, or other engine components optimize the performance of the spec manifold?
Even though we have had a hiccup with the rules governing our current manifolds, there has to be a way of tightening up the rules so that we don't go through this big process of changing the manifolds and potentially finding out that we are no better off.
Whatever your belief, make sure that you let the committee know so that they have a very good idea of the direction the FV community wants to follow.
Ray
Even though we have had a hiccup with the rules governing our current manifolds, there has to be a way of tightening up the rules so that we don't go through this big process of changing the manifolds and potentially finding out that we are no better off.
Whatever your belief, make sure that you let the committee know so that they have a very good idea of the direction the FV community wants to follow.
Ray
Re: January meeting
First a couple clarifications.
All work with the Australian spec manifold was of a preliminary, cursory nature. No one person/shop had the manifold long enough to do any extensive evaluations or compare it's performance on multiple engines. We were more concerned with getting it to as many interested parties possible than with getting really extensive data. It was flow tested by at least 3 different people (maybe five) and was dyno tested by 3. We were hoping for 2 more dyno opportunities, but this was WAY too optimistic given the time constraints we had to work under. We also passed it by someone who measured it up as best he could (me) and to a potential fabricator to get an initial cost estimate to produce something similar. In the end, some of those that worked with it provided SOME limited data, some just grunted and complained.
Still, the testing showed that, unrestricted, the Aussie manifold produced more hp than the best VW based manifold that each person had. One person reported the average HP gain was 2.8 HP over the 4000 to 6600 range, another reported the average gain was only 1 hp over a 5000 to 6400 range (actually I had to derive this from the graphs we received). One just grunted.
Two of the committee members did do flow testing themselves and might report their results, including the effect of some restrictor plates.
One engine builder made his own, .050" thick restrictor plates and did not like the way the engine responded. I finally got off my butt and had some 1/4" thick ones made and got them to the last person that dynoed an engine. Using these, the most promising result in matching the performance of his best VW based manifold was with a plate that was 1/4" thick, with 23mm hole having a .125" radius on the carb side face. This configuration caused the least change in the shape of the HP curve vs. no restrictor. With this plate the average HP in the 5000 to 6400 rpm range was equal to that of his very good VW based manifold. However, the shape of the HP curve was not the same. The restricted Aussie part produced more HP at the lower end of this range and the VW based part more on top.
More later. They don't pay me to reply to this board...
Bruce
All work with the Australian spec manifold was of a preliminary, cursory nature. No one person/shop had the manifold long enough to do any extensive evaluations or compare it's performance on multiple engines. We were more concerned with getting it to as many interested parties possible than with getting really extensive data. It was flow tested by at least 3 different people (maybe five) and was dyno tested by 3. We were hoping for 2 more dyno opportunities, but this was WAY too optimistic given the time constraints we had to work under. We also passed it by someone who measured it up as best he could (me) and to a potential fabricator to get an initial cost estimate to produce something similar. In the end, some of those that worked with it provided SOME limited data, some just grunted and complained.
Still, the testing showed that, unrestricted, the Aussie manifold produced more hp than the best VW based manifold that each person had. One person reported the average HP gain was 2.8 HP over the 4000 to 6600 range, another reported the average gain was only 1 hp over a 5000 to 6400 range (actually I had to derive this from the graphs we received). One just grunted.
Two of the committee members did do flow testing themselves and might report their results, including the effect of some restrictor plates.
One engine builder made his own, .050" thick restrictor plates and did not like the way the engine responded. I finally got off my butt and had some 1/4" thick ones made and got them to the last person that dynoed an engine. Using these, the most promising result in matching the performance of his best VW based manifold was with a plate that was 1/4" thick, with 23mm hole having a .125" radius on the carb side face. This configuration caused the least change in the shape of the HP curve vs. no restrictor. With this plate the average HP in the 5000 to 6400 rpm range was equal to that of his very good VW based manifold. However, the shape of the HP curve was not the same. The restricted Aussie part produced more HP at the lower end of this range and the VW based part more on top.
More later. They don't pay me to reply to this board...
Bruce
Bruce
cendiv37
cendiv37
Re: January meeting
Bruce, Thanks for the input that you did have.
I am not sure of what the time line is for making the recommendations to the board. However, it is clear to me that if ANY change is made with the data that seems to be available we will have a much bigger mess that we certainly may have now. And it will cost everyone money.
We have dealt with flow to HP curve and restrictor issues on many V8's and of course the FST 1600. This is not a simple issue of "peak hp" or flow alone, ESPECIALLY in a Vee. We have a very limited gear selection. So tuning the drive train to utilize some peak or even some small range average HP is not possible.
The apparent builders that have done the testing so far have adequate systems for building and testing a Vee engine. However before making any rules changes, tests should be done with FAR more detail in the collected data. (Some of those things mentioned in my post above.) We have over 50K invested in a system here that collects all that data and more. (Plus flow bench, etc.) We have offered 1 or 2 days of dyno time to do REAL testing and provide the data that could be used to make a much more professional decision. I personally don't care on what the final recommendation is, but unless there is something more in data and testing that I am unaware of, I can see the potential of a costly mistake. Similar to mistakes over the years that have turned what should be a $2500 motor in to a $7000 one.
I am not sure of what the time line is for making the recommendations to the board. However, it is clear to me that if ANY change is made with the data that seems to be available we will have a much bigger mess that we certainly may have now. And it will cost everyone money.
We have dealt with flow to HP curve and restrictor issues on many V8's and of course the FST 1600. This is not a simple issue of "peak hp" or flow alone, ESPECIALLY in a Vee. We have a very limited gear selection. So tuning the drive train to utilize some peak or even some small range average HP is not possible.
The apparent builders that have done the testing so far have adequate systems for building and testing a Vee engine. However before making any rules changes, tests should be done with FAR more detail in the collected data. (Some of those things mentioned in my post above.) We have over 50K invested in a system here that collects all that data and more. (Plus flow bench, etc.) We have offered 1 or 2 days of dyno time to do REAL testing and provide the data that could be used to make a much more professional decision. I personally don't care on what the final recommendation is, but unless there is something more in data and testing that I am unaware of, I can see the potential of a costly mistake. Similar to mistakes over the years that have turned what should be a $2500 motor in to a $7000 one.
-
garykittell
- Posts: 10
- Joined: January 7th, 2010, 9:14 pm
Re: January meeting
If I remember the show of hands consensus from the Runoff's driver's meeting correctly, the direction to the committee was to propose specific dimensions for the spec manifold we already have in order to cut off the "experimentation" that got us in to this mess in the first place. The manifold builders proposed dimensions to the drivers that in their expert opinion would work. I think we should share the data collected by the committee with them and then solicit a consensus specification from them rather than opening up another pandora's box of uncertainty. The spec manifold data from at least one round of testing suggests that if we go down this road we will be experiencing driveability issues and we will be back to chasing the best carburator and head combinations that compliment an over volume manifold with a restrictor plate. Shades of NASCAR with their dedicated "restrictor plate programs". On the surface the idea of a spec manifold that equalizes everyone seems attractive. However once you delve into the specifics small changes in manufacturing tolerances can make huge differences in flow and power. The collective wisdom at the drivers meeting was to tighten the rules on what we have. I think we should all be worried about the rule of unintended consequences.
Last edited by garykittell on February 3rd, 2010, 10:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: January meeting
At first glance, a spec manifold seems to be a no-brainer but the devil is in the details and these are the same details that have yet to be sorted with the VW manifolds.
*If a new manufactured spec manifold were to happen, how could we be assured of minimal difference between units?
*Wouldn't there need to be some way to measure each manifold to make sure it's not being messed with?
*Finding a way to measure the current manifolds is challenging. Wouldn't it be just as challenging with a new spec manifold?
*If some measurable dimensions can be derived for a new spec intake, couldn't they be derived for the current manifold that everyone already has?
*It seems that making a level playing field with a restrictor plate is not as easy as one would hope. There appears to be much work involved with getting the spec manifold to be comparable to the manifolds that are already on every FV. Is this work really needed? Do we really need a spec manifold? Or do we just need to specify the dimensions of what every FV in the country already has?
So, is it not possible to just put some limits on dimensions of the current manifold like Gary Kittel said was the consensus at the meeting at RA and call it a day?
The SCCA isn't trying to make us have a spec manifold...are they? I thought they just wanted us to give them some numbers so they could figure out how to measure the current VW manifolds.
Andy Pastore
D13 NER
*If a new manufactured spec manifold were to happen, how could we be assured of minimal difference between units?
*Wouldn't there need to be some way to measure each manifold to make sure it's not being messed with?
*Finding a way to measure the current manifolds is challenging. Wouldn't it be just as challenging with a new spec manifold?
*If some measurable dimensions can be derived for a new spec intake, couldn't they be derived for the current manifold that everyone already has?
*It seems that making a level playing field with a restrictor plate is not as easy as one would hope. There appears to be much work involved with getting the spec manifold to be comparable to the manifolds that are already on every FV. Is this work really needed? Do we really need a spec manifold? Or do we just need to specify the dimensions of what every FV in the country already has?
So, is it not possible to just put some limits on dimensions of the current manifold like Gary Kittel said was the consensus at the meeting at RA and call it a day?
The SCCA isn't trying to make us have a spec manifold...are they? I thought they just wanted us to give them some numbers so they could figure out how to measure the current VW manifolds.
Andy Pastore
D13 NER
Re: January meeting
Does this manifold have to be considered only as a "spec" part? What about allowing it as an "alternate" part, with specifications that place it's performance equal to the best of the current crop of massaged VW manifolds? Other than those who have already bought a killer $1500 manifold, who wouldn't want to be able to buy one with equal performance for one-third the price?
Re: January meeting
It seems that the Steering Committee's presumption that the membership is in favor of a spec manifold is premature. It's great information that the Steering Committee was able to collect, but I agree with what everyone has said. It's clear that it's impossible to settle/agree on a spec manifold soon enough for the 2011 rules.
Let me say that the effort put into the spec manifold and the attempt at a solution by the committee is greatly appreciated.
At this time, let's move forward with the defining those extra measurements for what we currently have and make rules that will stand for some number of years. People have made decisions and need to make decisions for the upcoming season. The spec manifold at this time will start another avalanche of manifold buying and new development that we should avoid if at all possible.
John
Let me say that the effort put into the spec manifold and the attempt at a solution by the committee is greatly appreciated.
At this time, let's move forward with the defining those extra measurements for what we currently have and make rules that will stand for some number of years. People have made decisions and need to make decisions for the upcoming season. The spec manifold at this time will start another avalanche of manifold buying and new development that we should avoid if at all possible.
John
Re: January meeting
Guys,
There's been a misinterpretation of what the January minutes meant regarding the spec. manifold. We are not presuming that the membership is in favor of a spec. manifold. We are simply asking for feed back on our assumption as to the nature of the most desirable spec. manifold.
That is, would the most desirable spec. manifold be both cheaper than the current breed of VW parts AND outperform them to a measurable extent? The rest of the requirements are inherent in the concept: consistency of performance, ease of enforcement, durability, etc.
What we want feedback on is whether in our continuing work to evaluate this option, should we be shooting for parity with existing manifolds or looking for improved performance. The Aussie part we tested is just one example of what can be done if we choose to increase FV performance as part of this exercise.
Matching the performance of existing manifolds brings many more challenges and risks to the task. How do we define "matching"? How would we attempt to match current manifold performance: make the entire manifold perform "identically" or try to develop a secondary device like a restrictor plate to provide additional control? How long would parity last if we used the spec. manifold alongside the modified VW parts? These are the kinds of questions we are asking ourselves and the committee (the majority anyway) feel that targeting both low cost AND higher performance is the way to go. We were just looking for some feedback on this.
Sorry for the confusion.
There's been a misinterpretation of what the January minutes meant regarding the spec. manifold. We are not presuming that the membership is in favor of a spec. manifold. We are simply asking for feed back on our assumption as to the nature of the most desirable spec. manifold.
That is, would the most desirable spec. manifold be both cheaper than the current breed of VW parts AND outperform them to a measurable extent? The rest of the requirements are inherent in the concept: consistency of performance, ease of enforcement, durability, etc.
What we want feedback on is whether in our continuing work to evaluate this option, should we be shooting for parity with existing manifolds or looking for improved performance. The Aussie part we tested is just one example of what can be done if we choose to increase FV performance as part of this exercise.
Matching the performance of existing manifolds brings many more challenges and risks to the task. How do we define "matching"? How would we attempt to match current manifold performance: make the entire manifold perform "identically" or try to develop a secondary device like a restrictor plate to provide additional control? How long would parity last if we used the spec. manifold alongside the modified VW parts? These are the kinds of questions we are asking ourselves and the committee (the majority anyway) feel that targeting both low cost AND higher performance is the way to go. We were just looking for some feedback on this.
Sorry for the confusion.
Bruce
cendiv37
cendiv37
-
Speedsport
- Posts: 170
- Joined: October 20th, 2006, 7:45 pm
Re: January meeting
I am opposed to a spec manifold for the following reasons:
1) The main cost driver in current manifolds is the minor differences between them. People are willing to pay a lot extra for a manifold that is "slightly" better then one they currently have. Who wouldn't pay extra for a manifold that is worth an extra .5 hp? I'm hearing a 1% value used as a range the spec manifolds would fit in. That's .5-.6 HP. Once several of these get out, those in the upper end of the range will be selling for more then the $450 number being tossed around. I know I'll probably end up buying 5 of them and sorting them. I wonder how much I could sell the #1 and #2 performing "spec" manifolds for? Hmmmm.....
2) Who is going to control the 1% window? Is that based on flow or dyno HP? The two are different. I know how hard it is to get dyno runs to repeat 1% back to back, but from day to day? There is no way these can be controlled to 1% on a consistant basis. I think every builder will agree that flow numbers don't always match dyno performance, so making them fall within a 1% flow range means nothing. Which brings everything back to point #1.
3) People have more then 1 manifold. I suspect most racers have a spare. If the spec manifold is required or is better then current legal manifolds, we are not talking about having to buy one $450 manifold, but possibly 2 or 3. So we are right back to making everyone spend $1000 on this spec manifold.
4) No one complained about manifold prices until someone figured out a way to improve them. Now the sky is falling. My last 2 manifolds have lasted me 10 and 5 years. With proper dimension control, why won't they last another 5-10 years without having to buy a new "spec" manifold?
5) I simply don't want to screw around with new manifolds. I can see a new manifold creating new problems. Will my scoops still fit properly around the manifold, will I need a new carb brace, will I need a new airbox since the carb is in a different place, ect.
1) The main cost driver in current manifolds is the minor differences between them. People are willing to pay a lot extra for a manifold that is "slightly" better then one they currently have. Who wouldn't pay extra for a manifold that is worth an extra .5 hp? I'm hearing a 1% value used as a range the spec manifolds would fit in. That's .5-.6 HP. Once several of these get out, those in the upper end of the range will be selling for more then the $450 number being tossed around. I know I'll probably end up buying 5 of them and sorting them. I wonder how much I could sell the #1 and #2 performing "spec" manifolds for? Hmmmm.....
2) Who is going to control the 1% window? Is that based on flow or dyno HP? The two are different. I know how hard it is to get dyno runs to repeat 1% back to back, but from day to day? There is no way these can be controlled to 1% on a consistant basis. I think every builder will agree that flow numbers don't always match dyno performance, so making them fall within a 1% flow range means nothing. Which brings everything back to point #1.
3) People have more then 1 manifold. I suspect most racers have a spare. If the spec manifold is required or is better then current legal manifolds, we are not talking about having to buy one $450 manifold, but possibly 2 or 3. So we are right back to making everyone spend $1000 on this spec manifold.
4) No one complained about manifold prices until someone figured out a way to improve them. Now the sky is falling. My last 2 manifolds have lasted me 10 and 5 years. With proper dimension control, why won't they last another 5-10 years without having to buy a new "spec" manifold?
5) I simply don't want to screw around with new manifolds. I can see a new manifold creating new problems. Will my scoops still fit properly around the manifold, will I need a new carb brace, will I need a new airbox since the carb is in a different place, ect.
Re: January meeting
Bruce,There's been a misinterpretation of what the January minutes meant regarding the spec. manifold. We are not presuming that the membership is in favor of a spec. manifold. We are simply asking for feed back on our assumption as to the nature of the most desirable spec. manifold.
Why go through the process of evaluating the most desirable spec manifold if there is no need for a spec manifold and if the majority of the Vee community does not want a spec manifold at this time?
Ray
Re: January meeting
FIX what is broken… it’s not the manifolds! It’s the rules!!!!
Does anyone really believe that racers, builders or suppliers … will not try and find a way to modify a Spec Manifold to get that extra 1/10 of a HP over everyone else?
A Spec Manifold is a waste of time and money!
Lets support the guys who have been supporting our class for years building and selling manifolds and not some “manufacturing facility"
Does anyone really believe that racers, builders or suppliers … will not try and find a way to modify a Spec Manifold to get that extra 1/10 of a HP over everyone else?
A Spec Manifold is a waste of time and money!
Lets support the guys who have been supporting our class for years building and selling manifolds and not some “manufacturing facility"
Re: January meeting
Responding for Bruce <G>,
The (pitifully few) received RESPONSES from the Registry mailing are running 3 to 1 FOR a Spec Manifold. We have over 175 members in the Registry who selected ACTIVE, SCCA, FV in their profile. You would think that more than 20 would care enough to send a response to the questions asked. (several of the responses I did receive just described the problem - no suggestion or preference as to how to solve it.)
BTW - we are working on a clarification follow up message. Seems that some interpreted that we are already COMMITTED to a Spec Manifold - that is not true. We are COMMITTED to *TRY* to come up with some reasonable changes to the current rule set to control further escalation (beyond the intent of the original rules). This is mostly an attempt to keep people from LEAVING THE CLASS because of it. On this forum, we are probably about 1/2 and 1/2 - oldies and newbies ... but hardly anyone is sending RESPONSES to the Registry emailing - just ranting on the forums, mostly with NO suggestions of what we should do (or not do) about the problem. Apparently, even those who are against SM and THINK that we are already committed to using one don't bother to respond via email as requested. In addition to that, we are INVESTIGATING a Spec Manifold because it seemed to work in Oz and it MIGHT be a long term solution for us. We *ARE* going to run out of 'stock' manifold parts some day.
In answer to Andy's question above
Steve
The (pitifully few) received RESPONSES from the Registry mailing are running 3 to 1 FOR a Spec Manifold. We have over 175 members in the Registry who selected ACTIVE, SCCA, FV in their profile. You would think that more than 20 would care enough to send a response to the questions asked. (several of the responses I did receive just described the problem - no suggestion or preference as to how to solve it.)
BTW - we are working on a clarification follow up message. Seems that some interpreted that we are already COMMITTED to a Spec Manifold - that is not true. We are COMMITTED to *TRY* to come up with some reasonable changes to the current rule set to control further escalation (beyond the intent of the original rules). This is mostly an attempt to keep people from LEAVING THE CLASS because of it. On this forum, we are probably about 1/2 and 1/2 - oldies and newbies ... but hardly anyone is sending RESPONSES to the Registry emailing - just ranting on the forums, mostly with NO suggestions of what we should do (or not do) about the problem. Apparently, even those who are against SM and THINK that we are already committed to using one don't bother to respond via email as requested. In addition to that, we are INVESTIGATING a Spec Manifold because it seemed to work in Oz and it MIGHT be a long term solution for us. We *ARE* going to run out of 'stock' manifold parts some day.
In answer to Andy's question above
No, SCCA isn't trying to do anything. They just asked the Committee (last May) to try to "solve the manifold problem ASAP". We're TRYING to figure out what the majority of the class would like to do. (and the 6 or 7 voices here on the Interchange don't give us that answer)The SCCA isn't trying to make us have a spec manifold...are they?
Steve
The Racer's Wedge and now a Vortech, FV80
-
Speedsport
- Posts: 170
- Joined: October 20th, 2006, 7:45 pm
Re: January meeting
Steve,
I'm not sure that just because 3 people who have responded for every 1 are for a spec manifold, that it should be viewed as the proper direction. This may not be popular opinion, but I don't think everyone should have an equal say in matters such as this. I don't think someone who races once or twice a year with minimal investment should have an equal say as those who are racing on a regular basis. I suspect there is a large group of people who like to respond to issues like this with opinions, but in the big picture, it would effect them very little. Some form of weighting of opinions must be used.
Please keep this in mind.
I'm not sure that just because 3 people who have responded for every 1 are for a spec manifold, that it should be viewed as the proper direction. This may not be popular opinion, but I don't think everyone should have an equal say in matters such as this. I don't think someone who races once or twice a year with minimal investment should have an equal say as those who are racing on a regular basis. I suspect there is a large group of people who like to respond to issues like this with opinions, but in the big picture, it would effect them very little. Some form of weighting of opinions must be used.
Please keep this in mind.
-
problemchild
- Posts: 901
- Joined: June 25th, 2006, 9:34 am
Re: January meeting
"This may not be popular opinion, but I don't think everyone should have an equal say in matters such as this ... Some form of weighting of opinions must be used."
Wow. Now there is a statement. Maybe .... National Champions get 100 votes. National guys get 10. Regional guys get 5. Part-time regional guys get one!
I could not agree less. I am afraid that I believe taking care of the little guys and getting more of them out more often is the key to the future of FV.
Wow. Now there is a statement. Maybe .... National Champions get 100 votes. National guys get 10. Regional guys get 5. Part-time regional guys get one!
I could not agree less. I am afraid that I believe taking care of the little guys and getting more of them out more often is the key to the future of FV.
Greg Rice
"Happy 50th Birthday"
"Happy 50th Birthday"
Re: January meeting
Mike,
We are well aware of that fact. And the 3 to1 ratio doesn't really mean much to us -- the numbers are so small it means NOTHING really. See the "vote" on the Left Coast Board about it. No numbers there either. Seems not many really CARE - at least care enough to respond to emails from the Registry.
So ... what are we to do ?? Forget it - stick with the current rules set - hope for the best and watch (enter number here) of those 'newer members leave the class because of it? Our numbers are already dwindling (as are everyone else's) - we're just trying to do what we can to protect the class "as it stands" - a VAST majority vote from those in attendance at the Runoffs meeting - don't "CHANGE" the class - just do whatever it takes to protect it as it stands.
Although I get a lot of emails in support of our objectives - what we are TRYING to do overall - we have EXTREMELY low support in deciding what to do. Only 4 or 5 people have seen fit to donate any $$ to the cause and the Committee is still funding everything we do at this point - not to mention the HOURS we put into it. I personally have put more than 10 hours into this stuff this week. And I'm sure there are similar numbers from at least a couple of other Committee members. I'd say the Committee passes at least 10 emails a DAY regarding all these issues (I just counted 16 for today ... so far ... on 'busy days', maybe 50). And we can't get 25% of the Registry members to tell us what they'd prefer.... Oh - and that time (and email count) does NOT include time spent reading and responding to messages on this board...
whaddya do??
Steve
We are well aware of that fact. And the 3 to1 ratio doesn't really mean much to us -- the numbers are so small it means NOTHING really. See the "vote" on the Left Coast Board about it. No numbers there either. Seems not many really CARE - at least care enough to respond to emails from the Registry.
So ... what are we to do ?? Forget it - stick with the current rules set - hope for the best and watch (enter number here) of those 'newer members leave the class because of it? Our numbers are already dwindling (as are everyone else's) - we're just trying to do what we can to protect the class "as it stands" - a VAST majority vote from those in attendance at the Runoffs meeting - don't "CHANGE" the class - just do whatever it takes to protect it as it stands.
Although I get a lot of emails in support of our objectives - what we are TRYING to do overall - we have EXTREMELY low support in deciding what to do. Only 4 or 5 people have seen fit to donate any $$ to the cause and the Committee is still funding everything we do at this point - not to mention the HOURS we put into it. I personally have put more than 10 hours into this stuff this week. And I'm sure there are similar numbers from at least a couple of other Committee members. I'd say the Committee passes at least 10 emails a DAY regarding all these issues (I just counted 16 for today ... so far ... on 'busy days', maybe 50). And we can't get 25% of the Registry members to tell us what they'd prefer.... Oh - and that time (and email count) does NOT include time spent reading and responding to messages on this board...
whaddya do??
Steve
The Racer's Wedge and now a Vortech, FV80
Re: January meeting
The committee wants input for the type of Spec Manifold to pursue. How about letting the information you have gathered on the Spec Manifold out? How can anyone make an objective selection without any facts?
I keep hearing that the Spec Manifold will be cheaper and easier to maintain. Where are the facts backing this statement? Just stating the proposed cost of the unit is not including the other parts of the intake system. How can a Spec Manifold be fair, when you will have to buy more than one to get the best? Remember you still have to test each unit or pay someone. This happens with every spec part in racing.
The current manifolds with added dimensions do not require a manditory cost incursion. You can chose to update them or not. You do not lose your investment on said manifold. I do not consider availibility or durability a problem. All mine are over 20 years old and I know of a supply that I can count on. Track records will not be effected.
My choice is easy, I will go with the known as opposed to the unknown.
I would suggest to those that want the Spec Manifold pay for it. Do not put the burden of the cost on the committee. You can then add that cost to your choice.
I sent in my opinion to the CRB and got a response that the subject has been tabled for now.
Bruce
I keep hearing that the Spec Manifold will be cheaper and easier to maintain. Where are the facts backing this statement? Just stating the proposed cost of the unit is not including the other parts of the intake system. How can a Spec Manifold be fair, when you will have to buy more than one to get the best? Remember you still have to test each unit or pay someone. This happens with every spec part in racing.
The current manifolds with added dimensions do not require a manditory cost incursion. You can chose to update them or not. You do not lose your investment on said manifold. I do not consider availibility or durability a problem. All mine are over 20 years old and I know of a supply that I can count on. Track records will not be effected.
My choice is easy, I will go with the known as opposed to the unknown.
I would suggest to those that want the Spec Manifold pay for it. Do not put the burden of the cost on the committee. You can then add that cost to your choice.
I sent in my opinion to the CRB and got a response that the subject has been tabled for now.
Bruce
Last edited by FVartist on February 4th, 2010, 7:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Left Coast Formula Car Board
http://norcalfv.proboards.com/index.cgi?
http://norcalfv.proboards.com/index.cgi?
Re: January meeting
Tough issue to resolve. I think there are a lot of folks with strong opinions that don't visit the internet a lot and have not weighed in. I like the mass mailing from the registry and further efforts there will help. I do agree with Mike that "less envolved" folk's votes could distort our impressions. Greg has a valid democratic point but there are voices here, that like Bill Bonnow says, don't have a dog in the fight. Once the season starts and our paths begin to cross, we will get more input. Everyone has made very good points here, especially Gary. I think spec program needs to be put on the back burner until the existing measurements are decided upon and the final rule submission goes out for input. Great work guys, I appreciate your efforts.
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.
-
Speedsport
- Posts: 170
- Joined: October 20th, 2006, 7:45 pm
Re: January meeting
Easy Greg-
You're taking my comment to the extreme. But do you honestly think that someone who happens to have a FV in his garage that he "might" take it out and race it a time or two should have equal control over the direction of the class as someone who is actively racing?? You're implying that someone with a single share of a company would have equal voting power as the largest share holder. It doesn't work that way. I don't have the right answer, I'm just saying that idea needs to be taken into consideration.
Steve -
I think I speak for everyone when I say we appreciate the time and effort you and the other committe member put into this. I don't think it goes un-noticed. I've always felt that we as class are spending too much time worrying about making existing owners happy and not enough time finding new ones. People will always find excuses not to race - manifolds, tires, ect. The committee is in a tough spot because you will never be able to make everyone happy. But no matter how many spec parts are on the cars, people will quit. As long as the inflow of new people is greater then the outflow of existing people, the class thrives. I've been spending some time trying to figure out how to attract new guys. I'll let you know what I scheme up.
You're taking my comment to the extreme. But do you honestly think that someone who happens to have a FV in his garage that he "might" take it out and race it a time or two should have equal control over the direction of the class as someone who is actively racing?? You're implying that someone with a single share of a company would have equal voting power as the largest share holder. It doesn't work that way. I don't have the right answer, I'm just saying that idea needs to be taken into consideration.
Steve -
I think I speak for everyone when I say we appreciate the time and effort you and the other committe member put into this. I don't think it goes un-noticed. I've always felt that we as class are spending too much time worrying about making existing owners happy and not enough time finding new ones. People will always find excuses not to race - manifolds, tires, ect. The committee is in a tough spot because you will never be able to make everyone happy. But no matter how many spec parts are on the cars, people will quit. As long as the inflow of new people is greater then the outflow of existing people, the class thrives. I've been spending some time trying to figure out how to attract new guys. I'll let you know what I scheme up.
-
hardingfv32-1
- Posts: 1014
- Joined: December 1st, 2006, 8:01 pm
Re: January meeting
Steve
The voting numbers have been and will always will be small, but the fact these few don't matter is not going to help the apathy issue. The perception is that the FV Committee does what it wants anyway. The members of the committee all bring their bias to the table. Letting this bias effect your decisions is a fair exchange for all the effort the members put in. I can accept that.
Please don't tell me that the committee is trying "to save FV for their children". There is no agreement on how to accomplish that and never will be. A completely political issue with no solution.
The committee should not have accepted the task of "solve the manifold problem ASAP" from SCCA. Your task should have been to right rules for a specific solution to the manifold issue as laid out by SCCA. The members of the FV Committee have too much personal involvement with manifolds to do anything other than write a specific set of rules to meet the guidelines of an impartial third party, say the CRB Formula Car Sub-Committee.
Start with SCCA giving you some answers first.
Brian
The voting numbers have been and will always will be small, but the fact these few don't matter is not going to help the apathy issue. The perception is that the FV Committee does what it wants anyway. The members of the committee all bring their bias to the table. Letting this bias effect your decisions is a fair exchange for all the effort the members put in. I can accept that.
Please don't tell me that the committee is trying "to save FV for their children". There is no agreement on how to accomplish that and never will be. A completely political issue with no solution.
The committee should not have accepted the task of "solve the manifold problem ASAP" from SCCA. Your task should have been to right rules for a specific solution to the manifold issue as laid out by SCCA. The members of the FV Committee have too much personal involvement with manifolds to do anything other than write a specific set of rules to meet the guidelines of an impartial third party, say the CRB Formula Car Sub-Committee.
Start with SCCA giving you some answers first.
Brian
-
Bill_Bonow
- Posts: 301
- Joined: June 26th, 2006, 12:53 pm
Re: January meeting
How did I get dragged into thisbrian wrote:....that like Bill Bonnow says, don't have a dog in the fight.
Hey Brian, only (1) "n" in Bonow
Bill Bonow
" I love Formula Vees, they're delicious!"
" I love Formula Vees, they're delicious!"
-
problemchild
- Posts: 901
- Joined: June 25th, 2006, 9:34 am
Re: January meeting
I do think that the top National guys need to be more concerned about those hundred part time guys than their own personal situations. Absolutely! I am not just being democratic. I believe that that those people are our target market. That is where growth will come from.
We have no problem getting 50 FVs to the Runoffs. But, it would be my guess that most of those 50 never raced with more than 10 cars all year before the Runoffs. Maybe a few from the Northeast or those that did the Sprints. Many Nationals had fewer than 5 or 6 cars.
While I think that I am opposed to the SM (spec manifold) concept in the short term, if it is where FV needs to be in 5 or 10 years .... then somebody has to come up with a plan to get us there!
We have no problem getting 50 FVs to the Runoffs. But, it would be my guess that most of those 50 never raced with more than 10 cars all year before the Runoffs. Maybe a few from the Northeast or those that did the Sprints. Many Nationals had fewer than 5 or 6 cars.
While I think that I am opposed to the SM (spec manifold) concept in the short term, if it is where FV needs to be in 5 or 10 years .... then somebody has to come up with a plan to get us there!
Last edited by problemchild on February 4th, 2010, 11:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Greg Rice
"Happy 50th Birthday"
"Happy 50th Birthday"
Re: January meeting
The only members of the club who ultimately get to cast a binding vote on this are the elected members of the BOB. The fact is that regardless of whatever "vote" is cast by participants in the class, whether by show of hands, emails, message boards, letters to the CRB, or whatever, the final decision making authority ultimately rests with the CRB and BOD. What you are really saying is that individual members opinions should not carry equal weight with the decision makers. I would argue that this is already the case, given what seems to be heavily disproportionate influence in rules making by professional prep shops and engine builders in most classes.Speedsport wrote:Easy Greg-
You're taking my comment to the extreme. But do you honestly think that someone who happens to have a FV in his garage that he "might" take it out and race it a time or two should have equal control over the direction of the class as someone who is actively racing?? You're implying that someone with a single share of a company would have equal voting power as the largest share holder. It doesn't work that way. I don't have the right answer, I'm just saying that idea needs to be taken into consideration.
-
hardingfv32-1
- Posts: 1014
- Joined: December 1st, 2006, 8:01 pm
Re: January meeting
"While I think that I am opposed to the SM concept in the short term, if it is where FV needs to be in 5 or 10 years .... then somebody has to come up with a plan to get us there!"
One reason we will never get there is in the name, Spec Miata! We are Formula Vee, not Spec Vee. Are you proposing starting a new class? Your not happy with FST?
Why don't you get your Spec Tire proposal passed before you move to creating a new class. When will the tire proposal be put to the membership? Talk is cheap, let's see some results.
Brian
One reason we will never get there is in the name, Spec Miata! We are Formula Vee, not Spec Vee. Are you proposing starting a new class? Your not happy with FST?
Why don't you get your Spec Tire proposal passed before you move to creating a new class. When will the tire proposal be put to the membership? Talk is cheap, let's see some results.
Brian