April Meeting

[Dietmar]

The FV Ad Hoc Committee met on April 28, 2010
Members attending: Steve Oseth, Stevan Davis, Bruce Livermore, Mike Kochanski, Dietmar Bauerle

Guest: Fred Clark

New Discussion Item:

A letter was received asking for an increase in the minimum weight from 1025 to 1050.

The Committee discussed some possible advantages of increasing the minimum weight. Some ideas that were presented were obvious: raising the minimum weight could minimize the advantage for someone who is within a few pounds of minimum compared to someone unable to attain minimum weight (regardless of the reason); raising the minimum could reduce the advantage to younger drivers who typically weigh less than older drivers; an increase could allow for alternate or additional structures that could improve driver safety such as replacing aluminum belly pans with steel; for those currently unable to add weight, additional weight could be added at advantageous locations.

At the same time, the Committee also discussed some negative aspects of increasing the minimum weight. The major concern was safety. Some cars already have ballast added to the tune of 20-30 pounds just to arrive at the current minimum weight. With limited space, where would an additional 25 pounds be added? The GCR only minimally controls how weight is added or where. Trying to add a total of 50 or 60 pounds (for those already well below the minimum) with nonstructural components might create its own hazard with inadequate mounting of the additional weight.

We discussed adding a lesser amount and that begged the question as to the need.

Although the poll conducted on the Interchange is not official, it did not seem to draw a lot of response, and of those who did respond, less than half favored a 25# weight increase.


The Committee is torn on this issue. We can not reach a consensus. We do not think a 25 pound increase is what is best for the class at this time without a serious evaluation of the safety issues involved. Our recommendation to the CRB will be as such. It will be up to them to decide whether to put this out for membership input or to table the item. We did however agree that if a group within a region or division wanted to propose a weight increase, it could do so at that level within a local class such as Club FV (similar to using a spec tire at the regional level).


OLD BUSINESS: Manifolds

The results of the SCCA Fastrack survey on FV manifolds (as of 4-27-2010):

Question #1: by a vote of over 2 to 1 the proposal of a Spec. manifold was defeated.


Question #2: by a vote of almost 3 to 1 the preference was to "Maintain the current state of the art" for modified VW 1200 based manifolds.


The Committee discussed these results at length. With the Spec. manifold quickly off the table, the issue was how to interpret the results of question #2. The difficulty revolves around defining "current state of the art". The survey question was more ambiguous than intended and the committee apologizes for this. In a series of back and forth proposals and counterproposals between the committee and members of the CRB, what started off as 4 or 5 proposed questions was whittled and tweaked down to just 2. Still, the "gist" of "maintain current state of the art" was interpreted as a general desire NOT to go backward from the existing manifold modifications and performance.

Within the committee, there seemed to be three interpretations of "maintain current state of the art":


1. Make no changes to the 2010 rules: the existing rules are "by definition" the "current state of the art".

2. Accept the recommendation for additional dimensional limits presented by the group of manifold makers at the 2009 Runoffs meeting as "defining" current state of the art.

3. Use the data collected from the FV drivers (who made the effort to submit dimensions on their manifolds) to define "current state of the art" and add additional dimensional limitations to control further “development” past this point.


During our discussion, we never could reach a consensus on which of these interpretations was best.


At the 2009 Runoffs a group representing most of the manifold manufacturers proposed adopting a set of measurements which they felt were appropriate. These were: minimum bend to bend distance of 17", maximum tube OD of 1.070" in the bend area measured at several locations and averaged, a maximum carb flange height of 9.25", with a maximum deviation from straight of 0.25" in a 12" run below the horizontal runners. The decision made by the members in attendance at that time (see the minutes from that meeting) was to take these dimensions under consideration and to gather real data for comparison and fine tuning of this proposal as needed.


One of the difficulties with the suggested measurements was the idea of "averaging". This was part of the problem in 1997 which caused the OD measurement in the "bend" to be eliminated which is of course a significant part of what brought us to the current situation with manifolds. As a result, the Committee will recommend a go-no go system of measuring in the bends which will hopefully simplify measuring. Based on the data made available to us by the membership, our recommendation will be to set a maximum OD in the bends of 1.100" (no tolerance) using the go-no go system of measurement rather than the maximum of 1.070" using an average of multiple measurements as recommended by the manifold makers. It should be noted that the 1.070" average recommendation by the group of manifold makers was used for guidance in selecting the 1.100" no-go limit given the data the committee had to work with (there is no data based on average bend OD dimensions for multiple points in the bend).


Another departure in the committee recommendations from the manifold makers Runoffs' proposal is the minimum distance from bend to bend. Based on the distribution of bend to bend distances reported in the data, with a goal of minimal impact on current manifolds (and with comparison to number of manifolds disallowed based on the manifold maker's and committee's proposed maximum bend OD limits) the committee is recommending a minimum bend to bend distance of 17.75". Bend to bend distance would be defined as the distance between points along the horizontal tube where the .994" OD ( as defined in 9.1.1.C.4.D.20.b) is first exceeded.


For the final overall recommendation, our vote was 3 in favor, 1 opposed and 1 abstention. We agreed that the data would have to take precedence over personal opinions and the committee will provide the CRB with the following recommendation for additional dimensional limits on FV manifolds:



17.75" Minimum Bend to Bend Distance

1.100" max diameter in the bend using a go-no go system of measuring

9.25" carb flange height (bottom of head flanges to the top center of carb flange)

0.25" maximum deviation from straight in any 12" section of the horizontal runners



It should be noted (again) that these dimensional limits would be in addition to ALL of the existing limitations currently stated in GCR 9.1.1.C.5.D.20


The data that was provided to the Committee by the membership and compiled by Bruce Livermore will be shared with the community as soon as the F/SRC and the CRB has a chance to review the data and our recommendations. Bruce will also attempt to provide a detailed explanation along with the data.


No other items were presented or discussed.

Next meeting scheduled for May 26

[FV80]

Just to head off the usual questions... the Committee has NOT made any "rule" - the info in the minutes will be presented to the CRB (as they requested after giving us the results of the SCCA poll) and the CRB will decide what to do with them. Presumably, THEY (possibly with more help from us) will actually write a rule proposal and post in the FasTrack for member input. Please watch for it.
Steve

[FV80]

I should also remind anyone who reads this that has not already received a copy from the Registry...
I am still getting about 25 bounces from my emailing. Any who did not receive the msg should check their email in the registry and update/correct it - or just send me an email telling me what the CORRECT email is. Any of you that have those blasted "You have to fill out this form to send to me" autoresponders ... I am NOT going to do that (about 10 times) - either put me on your whitelist or you just won't get the stuff from the registry.
Steve (Steve (at) WedgeRacing (dot) com)

[problemchild]

Is there a standard width for a "go-no-go" guage. That should be part of the spec. Thx.

[Matt King]

The Committee is torn on this issue. We can not reach a consensus. We do not think a 25 pound increase is what is best for the class at this time without a serious evaluation of the safety issues involved. Our recommendation to the CRB will be as such.

I would just like to point out that 25 pounds was not the only option presented in the poll, and that more than half of the respondents favored SOME increase in minimum weight. Please do not consider this as an all-or-nothing proposition regarding the 25 pound option when making a recommendation to the CRB. An additional 10 or 15 pounds would make a big difference (at least in perception!) for many of us who are close but just can't quite get there.

[hardingfv32-1]

SCCA inspectors around the country are not going to stock a gage that is specific to FV Manifolds. It should be assumed that they will use the blade portion of a standard caliper which is locked to the specification.

If you want to get something going on a weight change, an organized (group?) request to the CRB should get it done.

Brian

[wroché29]

Is there a standard width for a "go-no-go" guage. That should be part of the spec. Thx.

Yes, Brian is correct. I think all tech groups have a set of 6" calipers. To nit-pick; there's no need for the no-go portion of the go / no-go gauge.

[problemchild]

Please clarify. Will the current 1.050" avge spec measurement at the flange spec remain when the new specs are added or will it be replaced my the broader 1.100" go-no-go spec.

If so, it should help prevent another round of updates for most people.

[cendiv37]

"It should be noted (again) that these dimensional limits would be in addition to ALL of the existing limitations currently stated in GCR 9.1.1.C.5.D.20"

Could we be more clear?

[problemchild]

Sorry to bother you (again) Bruce. I don't have "the existing limitations currently stated in GCR 9.1.1.C.5.D.20" memorized.

Stating this particular point clearly and succinctly will prevent misunderstanding from those of us that are reading this casually and not ready to go on a research mission.

[problemchild]

For those others trying to follow along, the quoted rule states that the section of tube entering the end flanges can be a maximum of 1.050". The new 1.100" spec is referring to the curved sections between the horizontal section and the 1.050" section entering the end flanges. It does not mean that the entire ends can be opened up to the 1.100" size.

[hardingfv32-1]

1) The 1.050 measurement serves no purpose if you are now controlling the bend dimensions. It also prevents accident and dent repair if you have a restriction at the base of the manifold near the flanges. The manifold representative on the committee should have spotted this.

2) It can be argued that the 1.050 dimension is now superseded by the new bend measurements. Hopefully the F/SR Committee will follow that route.

Brian

[cendiv37]

For those who want the whole thing, below is the complete current manifold rule.
I thought including it within the minutes was "overload". I guess I was wrong.

At this point we have made our recommendation to the FSRC and indirectly the CRB. What they accept is TBD. They will do what they want so we can only advise and see what happens.

I suspect they will come back to us with the numbers they want to use and general concepts (average or no-go) they want to use. We will be asked to rewrite the rules for them and we will submit those for their (CRB) approval and to be sent out for member input.

As stated, OUR recommendation is that none of the current limits be removed, including the 1.050" limit above the flanges.

From "GCR - 197", GCR 9.1.1.C.5.D.20
Sorry for the formatting, but here's what you get with a cut and paste...

20. US imported VW Type 1, 1200 sedan manifold must be used.
The manifold heat riser tube and heat sink shall be removed.
Removal of metal from the interior of the intake manifold
and the interior rust-proofed is permitted provided that the
following dimensions are not exceeded.
a. Down Tube: The down tube shall be measured at two
different locations within an area between 0.500” and
2.00” above the horizontal manifold tube. Each measurement
shall be taken four times rotating around the circumference
of the tube, and averaged.
Averaged down tube dimensions shall not exceed 1.140
inches in O.D. Removing material from the outside of the
manifold to achieve the legal dimension is not permitted.
Removal of the manifold down tube from the horizontal
tube is prohibited. The original factory furnace bronze
attaching process and original factory bronze repair material
MAY be visible, inside and outside the manifold.
b. Horizontal tube: The horizontal tube shall be measured
at four different locations on each side of the down tube.
The area to be measured on each side of the down tube
is defined as being between the bend and a point that
is 1.500” from the center of the down tube connection.
Each measurement will be taken four (4) times, rotating
around the circumference of the tube, and averaged.
Averaged horizontal tube dimensions shall not exceed
0.994 inches O.D. In addition, the maximum O.D. of the
manifold measured where the tube inserts into the two
head flanges, and just above any repair material that has
been added, is 1.050 inches. Removing material from the
outside of the manifold to achieve the legal dimension is
not permitted.
c. The finished, race prepared, manifold shall not weight
less than 24 ounces. Intake manifolds may be repaired.
GCR - 198
9.1.1. Formula Car Category Specifications
Repaired manifolds shall start at 24 ounces BEFORE repair.
The addition of excessive material to achieve the minimum
weight is not permitted.
d All exterior surfaces shall be in original condition. Bead
blasting is permitted for cleaning only. Manifolds must remain
unpainted with color but may have a thin, transparent coat
of rust proofing material or clear coat type material applied.
Removing material from the outside of the manifold to achieve
the legal dimensions is not permitted.
e. Matching of manifold flanges (to the ports) is permitted. Seal
rings or “gaskets” of any type are acceptable as long as the
bottom of the manifold flange is not raised above the cylinder
head casting around the port opening. Removal of the manifold
flanges that connect the manifold to the cylinder head is
prohibited. Factory “VW” casting marks surrounded by a circle
and VW casting numbers shall be visible on the bottom side
of the flanges, closest to the head. No repair material of any
type shall be visible or cover these markings on the bottom of
the flanges. Factory furnace Bronze and manifold repair material
may be visible where the horizontal tube enters the top of
the flange. The exterior dimensions of these flanges must not
exceed 2.990” x 1.360”.

[problemchild]

Sure Bruce, confuse the issue with more mumble-jumble. Thx.

Brian, If opening up after the 1.050" section serves no purpose, why do you do it now? I guess it depends whether one is trying to contain costs for competitors or sell intake manifold updates.
I think maintaining the 1.050" section is the important part in containing costs. Different engine builders can argue the merits of enlarging to the 1.100", but this latest rule change should minimize the obsoletion of all those manifolds built in the last few years.

Regarding repairs, I am sure that Brian can apply the same "special" techniques to repairs that he uses to open up then close his manifolds in production.

[cendiv37]

A couple more comments (just to confuse the issue...):

1. Yes, there would really only be "go" limit. That is if the gauge doesn't "go" over the tube the manifold is disallowed. The common term used for this style of QC is go/no-go so that's what we wrote.

2. With or without the use of a go/no-go style limit, the thickness of the measuring tool is critical to the measurement achieved when measuring a curved tube. This is why a diameter tape ("pitape") won't work for our application. Standardizing on a go gauge thickness comparable to the thin portion of a typical dial caliper makes sense since as suggested, this will be how it's most likely to be done in the field.

BTW, I had 7 1.050" go gauges made out of (about) .030" thick. full hard SS for about $70. They came in about .003 under from the laser cutter and I tweaked them all to within .001". Sadly, we abandoned the idea of a 1.050" limit in the entire bend back in Feb. 2008. But that's another sorry...

I suspect we could get 100 go gauges made for less than $5 each and at that volume the supplier could tweak to within .001" right off the cutter.

[hardingfv32-1]

1) 1.050 measurement: When making a "current" manifold you would first do the bends as big as you can and then finish up by crimping the area above the flanges to meet the spec. The rules say you cannot remove material, but it can be moved. Once the 1.050 crimped zone is in place you cannot send a ball back in that matches the bends ID to facilitate a repair. The 1.050 choke zone does nothing "noticeable" to hurt flow. It has no value as a performance or cost control measure.

2) Absolutely no reason to make gages to check manifolds, as they are seldom, if ever checked. Possibly at the Runoffs, but even that will fade as soon as the new rules pass. There has not been any wave of illegal manifolds being found over the last few years, why would that trend change?

Brian