June Minutes

[Dietmar]

The FV Ad Hoc Committee met on June 23

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

Guest: Fred Clark

The focus of the discussion was the manifold rule change published in Fastrack.

Although the proposal by the CRB was slightly different than the proposal submitted by the Ad Hoc Committee with regards to the dimensions in the area between the head flange and the end of the bend- beginning of the horizontal section, the Committee reiterates their support for the proposal as published by the CRB.

Originally, the Ad Hoc Committee suggested a final dimension not to exceed 1.1 inches anywhere from the head flange to the end of the bend(s) and the measurement was to be determined by a go-no go gauge which could easily be supplied to Tech in each region. This recommended number was derived from looking at the data that was submitted by competitors and compiled by Bruce Livermore from the previous survey on manifolds. It was felt that this 1.1” number would meet the most needs and allow the use of a large majority of the manifolds in use today.

The CRB however felt that a smaller number of 1.070” would better serve the majority of the FV community. They did agree that the use of a go-no go gauge would be preferable to an averaging method in the bends and would also facilitate checking a manifold without having to remove it from the engine. It would also eliminate any guess work as to where or how the area was to be measured. If the gauge did not fit, the manifold would have to be removed for further examination but per the CRB rules proposal, the final determination of legality would be via a go no-go method.


A group of members is organizing a "get out the vote effort" to request that the wording be changed to allow for AVERAGING of the bend area. This is something that the Ad Hoc Committee opposes if for no other reason than this idea of averaging is the cause of where we are today. In 1997, it was believed that the bend area could not be measured consistently via the averaging method used up to that time, and the rules were changed to eliminate any measuring of this area of the horizontal tube. Today, some members seem to feel that this problem has been resolved and now the bend area CAN be measured accurately. The committee has no problem with groups of members trying to organize to influence the rules making process, but we hope that the final input of the membership is truly representative of the entire FV community, not just a motivated minority.

As such, the Ad Hoc FV committee believes it is extremely important that all concerned FV competitors express their opinion on the proposed manifold rules by writing to the CRB by going to http://www.crbscca.com . Be sure to title the request as FV Manifold and STATE whether you are in favor of the CRB’s recommendation for the FV rule change or opposed. You may also also add comments to support your reasoning. In addition, please describe your connection to FV (driver, crew member, supplier, etc.). Only SCCA members will be allowed to vote. This manifold rule affects all FV competitors so please take the time to express your opinion - and please, the topic is FV manifolds rule change! It has been, and always will be the intent of the AdHoc Committee to address the needs of the entire FV community, and we hope that the membership will do the same when making their comments.


Remember, if you didn't vote, you can't complain about the results...

No other items were presented or discussed.

Next meeting scheduled for July 28

[FVartist]

A group of members is organizing a "get out the vote effort" to request that the wording be changed to allow for AVERAGING of the bend area. This is something that the Ad Hoc Committee opposes if for no other reason than this idea of averaging is the cause of where we are today. In 1997, it was believed that the bend area could not be measured consistently via the averaging method used up to that time, and the rules were changed to eliminate any measuring of this area of the horizontal tube. Today, some members seem to feel that this problem has been resolved and now the bend area CAN be measured accurately. The committee has no problem with groups of members trying to organize to influence the rules making process, but we hope that the final input of the membership is truly representative of the entire FV community, not just a motivated minority.

You state that averaging was the cause, I say leaving the area open was the cause that brought us to where we are now. They could have installed the no-go at that time but did not. Why then is it a better method now if it was not used then? I do not know, but remember the part they did not change was the averaging method.

The committee could be called a motivated minority. What is wrong with that? Those that vote are motivated, those that don't, have no one to blame but themselves. Most know of this subject by now. The side that gets the most votes is the majority and are no longer a motivated minority. All debates start this way.

Bruce F.