clarifications

[Dietmar]

Based on e-mails and phone calls, posts on the Interchange and other sites, and e-mails that have been distributed across the FV community, the FV Ad Hoc Committee feels there is a need for some clarification of our purpose and intent with regards to not only spec manifolds but also the current SCCA rules regarding manifolds and the escalation of development and costs.

In our opinion, we have several tasks to perform and hopefully will accomplish at least one within the next few months. First, and most important is to address the SCCA rules regarding manifolds, using the data that has been compiled, and present a series of measurements to the FV community which will not obsolete a large MAJORITY of existing manifolds, nor create a situation where too many manifolds are deemed illegal. There are such wide ranges within the data collected that it makes this a very difficult task. But we are truly working on getting something out as soon as possible to which the membership can respond. It is obvious to us that no matter what recommendations we come up with, someone will not be happy. We are wrestling with this fact more than anything else. We'd like to meet everyone's needs. But this will not happen.

Our second task , based on past member input, is to look at the possibility of adopting a spec manifold. This process began by obtaining an Australian manifold, measuring it and creating a CAD drawing, sending the manifold to several engine builders and manifold suppliers and to one highly competent fabricator (not SCCA Enterprises by the way). The manifold was tested on several dynos and flow benches by people who perform this task on a daily basis as part of their business. Flow bench and dyno testing confirmed that the Aussie would outperform any current 1200 manifold. These tests also allowed us to determine the approximate size and shape of a restrictor plate which would bring the Aussie to a performance level approximating the best current 1200 manifolds. We have also obtained a preliminary estimate of about $450 to produce a manifold ( not $ 600 as some e-mails have stated). The cost would go down with more units produced. We have also contacted two other manufacturers to obtain at least 3 estimates total and would welcome more if we find some interested parties. Our criteria for choosing the manufacturer is cost, variances in flow held to 1% or less ( proven viable by the Aussies), producing equal or better performance than a 1200 VW for less money and the ability of the fabricator to certify that the manifolds perform as required. We feel we are at a very early stage here with lots to learn and need more time to come up with a decent recommendation.


The Committee can NOT mandate- nor have we ever stated that we plan to mandate a spec manifold. We are simply continuing along a path to see what could be made available to meet the criteria stated above. We have requested input from the membership. If we were hearing from the membership that a spec manifold is NOT what is desired, we would stop the process right now and save ourselves a lot of work but that is NOT what we are hearing. Since posting the January minutes and the e-mail from The FV Registry, we have had more positive comments than negative regarding a spec. manifold, but we have also been made aware of a lot of misinformation being circulated and some misinterpretation of our mission. Before this gets out of hand, we have decided to post this more detailed explanation - in the hopes that we can clarify our intent.


In our January minutes, we asked for member input on the spec manifold idea. We probably should also have requested suggestions for fixing the current manifold rules. Regarding the current manifolds we have received some comments like: "fix what we have", but without any further suggestions. Someone even "hinted" that we are hiding data. We have also been accused of being biased. When we requested member data we assured everyone that no names would be associated with the results and Bruce Livermore has made a point to insure privacy. As stated earlier, the spread in dimensions is great. This leaves us with a daunting task to provide a recommendation that will make MOST of the membership happy.

Keep in mind that the Committee feels that it’s assignment at this point is to try to protect the CLASS as best we can. This, to us, means that we have 2 objectives.

1). KEEP as many current people from leaving the class as possible.

2). Attempt to keep the class as seen from the outside as ‘stable’ and inexpensive – a good place to join racing.

There was a meeting during the last Runoffs, as there have been several times over the years, but the majority of the class is not able to attend these meetings. What is presented at those meetings is, in large part, only applicable to the “Runoffs intent” competitors – there are MANY other members of the class that must be considered.



If anyone has questions, please contact anyone on the Committee. This will provide much better results than guessing our intentions or getting side tracked by erroneous information posted on the Interchange or via personal e-mail.

[DanRemmers]

Can you post the names and contact info of the committee members?

[Dietmar]

Dan:

You can simply click on my name at the top just below the topic heading, you can click on the banner ad at the top of the page, or go to http://www.QuixoteRacing.com.

Any or all will get a message to me which I will not only respond to but also share with the rest of the members.

Dietmar

[FV80]

Or you can look at the bottom of your last Registry email to find them all listed there. Another email (the clarification) should get to you sometime today.
Steve