February meeting

[Dietmar]

The Fv Ad Hoc Committee met on February 24

Members attending: Steve Oseth, Stevan Davis, Bruce Livermore, Mike Kochanski, Dietmar Bauerle

Guest: Fred Clark

Since our last meeting we have asked for membership feedback on manifolds- specifically, spec manifolds. Many of the responders, whether pro or con, included reasons with their opinion. Of the 391 members listed on the FV Registry, a little over 90 responded. 58 were in favor of a spec manifold. 36 were opposed. The Committee acknowledges that these numbers do not represent the full FV community and that this feedback was not through official SCCA channels. Therefore the committee would like to gather another round of feedback through the official SCCA process (Fastrack request for membership input or equivalent) to confirm or deny the level of interest in a spec. manifold.

We have contacted 3 potential sources for spec. manifold fabrication and have received 2 estimates to build various sized lots of manifolds patterned after the sample Australian “Control Manifold” that the committee obtained and circulated during the month of January. This is a start. We are looking to obtain at least one more estimate from SCCA Enterprises. To take the next step, prototype manifolds will have to be built and tested to determine the effects of design of the “T”, tubing size(s) and general construction on flow and performance. We need to determine the proper specifications to make the spec manifold appealing to the majority of FV competitors. One of the important constraints the committee believes must be met is price. The target is to keep the cost to competitors at or below $500 per manifold. The estimates we have so far seem to indicate that this should be possible. Additionally, the committee believes that a spec. manifold should have the ability to outperform what is currently available and must be produced in such a way that each one flows within 1% of all others. We estimate that at least 10 manifolds of the final design will be needed to evaluate performance and consistency before we would consider moving on to a final production run.

Recognizing that the e-mails we received were not “official” votes for or against a spec manifold, we are developing a survey for the CRB to send directly to the membership OR to publish in Fastrack as soon as possible. We are working with SCCA to determine the best way to do this. Once published, we estimate that members will have 30 days to "vote". If a survey is sent out as an automated survey, the membership will simply need to respond to the e-mail they receive. If the survey is done through Fastrack, we believe responses will need to be made by sending an e-mail to the new CRB web site (http://www.crbSCCA.com). Once the survey is sent out, or published in Fastrack, the FV Registry will send a reminder to all Registry members to vote their preferences, and indicate how the survey is being conducted. We will also publish this information on the FV Interchange and ApexSpeed.

Of course, there will be a cost associated with a spec manifold development process. We do not want our Committee wallets emptied if we do not have membership support. We will await the results of the survey before diving into manifold development at full speed, but will continue to do what we can to keep the development process moving in the mean time.


The primary issue the survey will address is this: SHOULD the FV Ad Hoc Committee continue development work on a spec manifold which would be implemented no later than the 2012 season (assuming all criteria are met).

Additional questions might be included in the survey regarding details about the spec manifold and also about imposing additional restrictions on existing VW manifolds for 2011. Neither the exact questions nor the format have yet been determined, but we are trying to move forward at the fastest pace possible.

The committee is NOT ready to recommend anything at this time. We are first asking for additional guidance from the membership. Bottom line: when the survey comes out, vote for or against a spec manifold beginning in 2012. This is an opportunity for everyone to voice their opinion. Please understand your vote must be cast within the allotted time in order to count. We have a timeline to adhere to if we are to continue exploring the spec manifold. Our timeline is also short to make recommendations for any additional manifold rules and dimensional controls which would take effect in 2011 should the membership decide that the spec manifold is not in the best interest of the class.

Remember, the 2010 rules are in place for this season, so none of this will have any effect for this year.


Spindles: the use of the California Import Parts 1(CIP1) spindle and carrier has been approved (March Fastrack). Testing of the material has shown the hardness is comparable to the VW spindle and welding seems comparable to the VW parts. Bearing spacers or spindle tethers (GCR 9.1.1.C.3.7) are still recommended with their use.


No other items were presented or discussed.

Next meeting scheduled for March 24.

[Dave]

I am absolutely opposed to the committee asking SCCA Enterprises for an estimate to build intake manifold.. We the Club has propped up that entity for 25 years with millions, yes millions of dollars and should have no dealings with them. The damage they have done to the organization is immeasurable.

Dave

[jpetillo]

Spindles: the use of the California Import Parts 1(CIP1) spindle and carrier has been approved (March Fastrack). Testing of the material has shown the hardness is comparable to the VW spindle and welding seems comparable to the VW parts. Bearing spacers or spindle tethers (GCR 9.1.1.C.3.7) are still recommended with their use.

Before the March 2010 Fastrack, I hadn't noticed any previous 2009 issues mentioning the spindles. But, this wording suggests it's a done deal. I guess I really don't understand the process, yet. Does it mean that they got letters convincing enough that it doesn't need to be opened up for member comment? The CRB page suggests it's not supposed to work that way, but maybe I misread it.

The real point of this post is that I'm wondering why it identifies specific parts from a specific vendor. That seems odd. I understand from FV suppliers that this same spindle can be sourced from other suppliers. If this is the case, perhaps it should be amended to say somethign to that effect and not restrict us to one vendor. Why shouldn't it allow spindles (and dogbones, etc) of the same fit, function and material?

John

[CitationFV21]

>>>>>

The real point of this post is that I'm wondering why it identifies specific parts from a specific vendor. That seems odd. I understand from FV suppliers that this same spindle can be sourced from other suppliers. If this is the case, perhaps it should be amended to say somethign to that effect and not restrict us to one vendor. Why shouldn't it allow spindles (and dogbones, etc) of the same fit, function and material?

John

Already have a request into the CRB about this - they have a new system where you can put in a request and track the request - it gets assigned a tracking number - a very good thing - they just have to set up a system so 20 people do not request the same thing.

Here is the tracking site: http://www.crbscca.com/front%20side/track.php

My request is # 853

You have to sign in to submit but not to review status.

ChrisZ

[jpetillo]

Already have a request into the CRB about this - they have a new system where you can put in a request and track the request - it gets assigned a tracking number - a very good thing - they just have to set up a system so 20 people do not request the same thing.
Here is the tracking site: http://www.crbscca.com/front%20side/track.php
My request is # 853
You have to sign in to submit but not to review status.
ChrisZ

It came back with...
Letter number #853 is currently waiting to be reviewed by the F-SR committee. After the F-SR committee reviews your letter, the CRB will review it, and it will proceed to Fastrack.

[brian]

The spindle issue was resolved by a tech bulletin, not a rule change. Since there was no rule written or changed, a tech bulletin can cover supply issues, corrections and minor mechancal issues. You will notice that certain aftermarket items get specific authorization since they might not be considered "exact" duplicates. The LRE rear drums and diaphram clutch are two other examples that were handled without membership input and are in the rules now. Hope this helps clear the confusion.

[jpetillo]

Okay, thanks, I see. So the Tech Bulletin in this case tells us that something that may have been questionable with regard to being legal is actually legal, and we'll see no mention of it in the GCR. Did I get that right? If so, then that's fine. Fastrack perhaps could have made that clear, but perhaps I wasn't being careful enough when I read it.

Where are the Tech Bulletins published, or is it just a part of Fastrack? Thanks, John

[hardingfv32-1]

WARNING...

The Chinese spindles are NOT machined correctly. They have a very small radius where the inner bearing seats against the seal land. VW did not machine a large radius under the seal race just so they could have an extra part, the seal race itself. There is an expense involved with WV's design. They had a very good reason for it or they would not have done it.

The LRE spindles have a radius larger than the original, which leads me to believe he knows what he was doing.

Brian

[brian]

If you go to the SCCA web site and look up the 3/10 Fastrac, you'll find the spindle issue under Tech Bulletins. Generally, a tech bulletin will be included in the next GCR. Tech bulletins are more common in the Prod classes where there are so many car and engine combinations, issues and competition adjustments.

[jpetillo]

Brian M. yes, thanks I now see that distinction. This is the problem with paging through things on the computer - you can miss the header at the top of the page. Shame on me!