January meeting

[problemchild]

I was under the impression that the spec manifold had previously been referred to as SM. If I confused you Brian, I apologize. I edited the post above. Thanks!

[CenDiv20]

If you weigh votes or opinions by such factor of "seniority" or "active participation" then you contradict providing new comers to the class with equality... that alone could deter newcomers from purchasing a Vee and wanting to race with us.....

Just making a statement that we have to look at this whole thing and anticipate ALL the effects. Why don't we just add Toyota engines to the class too, I hear they prefer to be at Wide Open Throttle most of the time!

[SR Racing]

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.

Nor should they. (carry equal weight). Every FV driver/member does not have the experience, tools, and knowledge of parts availabilty, pricing trends or safety data, etc. A simple majority vote (whether done 1 for 1, or based upon participation) should ONLY be CONSIDERED. The bulk of rules decisions should be made using input from retailers/importers and builders other experts in that particular field. (We can only hope that the input is valid and not done for selfish motives. That is what the CRB should be considering.). Most sucessfull racing venues have their rules made by "benevolent" dictators. Since these dictators have the most to win or lose based upon participation and success of the class, it works. Being a "club" I do not believe that the SCCA at our levels has the right motives in mind. They are not profit driven (per se').

I would like to see our rules package dictated (in most all cases) by some body that is only concerned with OVERALL success of that class. Input from anyone should be only considered on its merits not its quantity. A true democracy is only an ideal that has never worked. (Even in government. Only a representative democracy has SEEMED to work thus far. <g>

[Matt King]

Jim, as I said, I think the club in actual fact really does operate like that, it's just that it has to be careful to maintain the appearance of being a "democratic" membership-driven organization in certain respects. It sounds like you are suggesting a stronger FV advisory committee, which is a reasonable idea. When I raced in Camaro Mustang Challenge with NASA, I was a regional series director and on the board of directors of the group that made all the rules for the class. It wasn't a perfect process, but what really stood out as different from the SCCA process was that active participants in the class representing groups of racers from around the country brought their ideas to the table, hashed them out, and implemented them. We had oversight from the National sanctioning body, but they rarely interfered with the nuts and bolts details of running the class. It was much closer to true representative governance than what SCCA has.

[brian]

Great points guys, what were we talking about? Lest we forget that the vendors and builders are members,they should have a voice. SCCA has a long history of supporting the commercial side of the club. Probably one of the reasons the club has spent so much time in court. When I asked why the Honda Fit motor wasn't made a sealed, inexpensive alternative, I was told bt a BOD memberit would be too hard on the vendors. nuff said?

Matt's idea of the classes running themselves is why we have the advisory committees covering all the classes. Most members of these committees are active racers in the respective classes.

[CitationFV21]

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.....

Hey, I am down 4 hp due to the fact that my engine has not been updated in 10 years, maybe if I could spend $450 and get close I might be more inclined to race more......<grin> You could do like we do with slot cars and hand out manifolds before the race and take them back later - swap them around... I know, not practical. What makes a manifold different than a crank, block or flywheel? Why should one be so much better than another or cost so much?

The funny thing is that same thing is going on in my home town with softball bats. Here is a link to the story:
http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/spor ... 96287.html

The funny thing is listening to the players - "I don't want to give up my $300 bat", "I have $1200. tied up in bats that will be obsolete", "It is my right to use whatever bat I want" - all because some guys are too lazy to run and have to be able to hit home runs so they can waddle around the bases.....

This is FV not F1!

ChrisZ

[FVartist]

The analogy of the bat is not a good comparison, because the a bat is a stand alone item. The intake manifold works in conjunction with the rest of the engine. The supposed $450.00 cost of the spec manifold is not all that will be needed. The carb and heads will need to be reworked. They all will need to be flowed and dyno'ed to work properly together. There are not that many that could do this themselves, thus the added cost, which could get very expensive.

Personally I do not see how anyone could manufacture a manifold that would flow with a .5% or less difference for that low a price or with each side with the same .05% flow difference. Some would have to be massaged. How would you tell the difference between one done by the manufacturer or after? This just gets us back to where we are now. Any rate difference greater would be useless since we are starting from a low HP rating.

The committee has the info from the people that tested the borrowed unit. Please release the info. I think it only fair to make an informed decision. I would also request that the committee release the measurements that they were given by the intake manufacturers. This could give us an idea where they think our manifolds should be.

Bruce

[smsazzy]

When people went out and bought themselves a new $1200 monster mannie, did they have to rework their carb and heads to optimize it for the flow increase?

[FVartist]

Steve,

I would suspect they would at a minimum had to have their engines put on a dyno and have their carbs rejetted, however the spec manifold that was sent around is a totally different animal. You can not compare one to the other. This is why I am asking that the info gathered to be shared including the numbers from the manifold manufactors for our current manifolds.

Bruce

[CitationFV21]

The analogy of the bat is not a good comparison, because the a bat is a stand alone item.

Bruce

Sorry if I was not clear in the intent.

It does not matter if it is a bat, intake manifold or whatever; it is the concept of buying an advantage.

If the current manifolds are equal +/- 2% and the spec manifold is +/-1%, then the spec manifold is better as long as price and availability is reasonable.

I am surprised the proposed cost of the spec manifold is so low, but am not ready to say it is THE solution, but it does look promising.

Of course there will be some people who will test 5 manifolds and get the best one, but they will have less of advantage as someone who could afford to do the same thing with "stock" manifolds where the performance difference is greater.

Also, during the manufacturing and testing process, any "ringer" that comes out can be taken out of the system - leveling the playing field.

I submit that the purpose of the FV rules (and I get tired of saying this) is to minimize the difference in parts performance and to focus on driver performance.

ChrisZ

PS - If we were to solve the manifold issue tomorrow, then the discussion would move to tires or bodywork - as long as we are not a true spec class there will always be something that affects the level playing field. The rulesmakers job is to keep the differences as small as possible.

[cendiv37]

The analogy of the bat is not a good comparison, because the a bat is a stand alone item. The intake manifold works in conjunction with the rest of the engine. The supposed $450.00 cost of the spec manifold is not all that will be needed. The carb and heads will need to be reworked. They all will need to be flowed and dyno'ed to work properly together. There are not that many that could do this themselves, thus the added cost, which could get very expensive.

Personally I do not see how anyone could manufacture a manifold that would flow with a .5% or less difference for that low a price or with each side with the same .05% flow difference. Some would have to be massaged. How would you tell the difference between one done by the manufacturer or after? This just gets us back to where we are now. Any rate difference greater would be useless since we are starting from a low HP rating.

The committee has the info from the people that tested the borrowed unit. Please release the info. I think it only fair to make an informed decision. I would also request that the committee release the measurements that they were given by the intake manufacturers. This could give us an idea where they think our manifolds should be.

Bruce

First we're told by a manifold maker that one can't repeatedly measure within 1% on a flow bench, now we are discussing .05% differences between sides. I'm confused...

Personal opinion: I think the carbs are pretty well controlled and have been since the early 90's. I doubt there will be any changes "required" here except some rejetting. Yes, a good carb will be a bit more important, IF a spec. manifold is designed to flow considerably more than our current ones do.

I know for a fact that the Varacins are continually testing heads and taking pick of the litter from their builder who is always tinkering with what works best. Fine. What would change? I'm sure they did the same with their manifolds.

My engine is dyoed each time it's rebuilt completely and the jetting checked. Typically the jetting is pretty much the same for my two manifolds and two carbs when used on the same engine. Not much change even to move them to my 2nd engine. Manifold, head and carb variability probably drives jetting differences between engines that are less similar than my 2. If you took out the manifold variability (with a spec. manifold), the jetting differences from engine to engine would probably vary even less. This could save engine builders time in dialing them in: the manifolds would all be very close rather than varying all over the map like they do today.

The committee plans on publishing ALL the data we have when we make our rules recommendation. Our goal is to do this by the end of this month at the latest.

[Pat Hughey]

Why aren't the cylinder heads or the carburetor the limiting factor? Only so much air can flow into and out of them. Aren't the rules for these adequate? So let the manifold be any size. Once the manifold reaches a certain point in size what happens? Can it be too big?

Pat

[cendiv37]

Pat,

Right now, our manifolds are a significant limiter of our engine performance, thus the need to have a good one if you want to stay at the pointy end of the field. One of the goals of the Australian move to spec. manifolds was to take the manifold out of the performance equation as much as possible. They intended to make it flow well enough that small differences would not matter that much because the carb and heads would be the major limiters. They also required that they all be certified to flow within a 1% total range. They seem quite satisfied with the results from what I've heard. Whether this should be our goal is certainly open to debate. That's kind of what we were asking when this recent discussion started. What KIND of spec manifold would be most desirable IF we were to develop one for further evaluation.

[Speedsport]

I know for a fact that the Varacins are continually testing heads and taking pick of the litter from their builder who is always tinkering with what works best. Fine. What would change? I'm sure they did the same with their manifolds.

Bruce,

Yes, we have tried a lot of different heads. All of which took an incredible amount of time. It's suprisingly difficult to test heads back to back with reliable results. But keep in mind that by us doing so, it helps everyone involved - we were able to provide direct information to the builder as to which heads did what on the dyno. I don't think it was pure luck that the same builder was 1-2 on the front row for this years race.

But with that being said, I really do believe that if a spec manifold comes around with flow properites different from the current, the heads will change. Maybe not in an effort to find the max peak HP, but in an effort to change the shape of the power curve. I also think that it's possible the exahust systems might change as well. My point is that I think people might be a little naive to the possible side effects of a new manifold design. While it's nice to think that something as easy as going to a spec manifold might help reduce costs and improve pairity, it's never quite that easy. Those with the desire will always try to find ways to use things like that to an advantage, which will still force others to try and keep up. A radical change like a new manifold can force quite a few changes in other areas.

What about cooling scoops? I know our scoops were made to fit very close to the current manifolds, as I suspect others are as well. If the diameter is any larger then the current, or of a slightly different shape, that means re-making cooling scoops. Just another concern.

[brian]

Pat, your question is a good one and it does point out a common misunderstanding about air flow. An engine is not only dependent on how much air is flowing, but the quality (velocity and other movements) is actually more important. Changing any component in the system could upset the balance. Anyone who has done the kind of work that Mike and Al have done, knows that you can't simply bolt something on and expect it to be maximized. I can imagine hours and hours maximizing a spec manifold.