The FV Ad Hoc Committee met on August 24.
Members attending: Steve Oseth, Stevan Davis, Bruce Livermore, Dietmar Bauerle
Guest: Fred Clark
Fred Clark informed us that the schedule has been set for the RunOffs:
10:40 Monday
2:10 Tuesday
4:10 Wednesday
8:40 Thursday
Race at 9:30 Friday
The Committee has asked the CRB (via the F/SR Committee) to clarify the wording regarding the front suspension link pin offset bushings. A Tech Bulletin will probably appear in Fastrack in the coming months as an Error and Omissions statement clarifying that the ...”offset suspension bushings and alternate locating spacers” wording applies only to the LINK PIN bushings and nothing more. Questions have been raised recently on the forums and the Committee agreed that there was confusion and that the GCR needed to be more specific.
Over the past months, Committee members have received a number of inquiries regarding the legality of "Chinese" pistons and cylinders. While the Committee does not make or enforce the rules, we do try to respond to this type of request as best we can. The "Chinese" pistons that Committee members have seen appear to be non-compliant with the rules since they are not "dimensionally identical" to original VW pistons. Specifically, the compression ring land width and location are not the same as an original VW part. There may be compliant Chinese pistons out there, but those that Committee members have seen appear to be non-compliant in our opinion.
During this discussion, the general concept of using dimensional limits to control pistons was discussed. This would replace the "dimensionally identical" limitation. This led to a discussion of the use of custom made pistons. Some on the Committee feel that if we change to dimensional control, forged pistons will be allowed by default. At that point, a case could be made that a more optimal FV piston design could intentionally be allowed which would use readily available "real" racing rings, etc. Would this be a cost effective alternative to the expensive "ring packages" currently being used?
When piston and cylinder availability becomes a real problem, Chinese pistons, forged pistons and dimensional control will be part of the discussion for finding replacements. For now, the Committee is not recommending any changes.
Mike Kochanski has asked to remove himself from the Committee due to family commitments and we will be honoring his request. We are therefore entertaining the addition of one or two new members to the Committee. Stevan Davis will be sending a letter via the FV Registry asking for “volunteers” with a background in FV either at the regional or National level.
No other matters were presented or discussed.
Next meeting is scheduled for September 28
August Meeting
Re: August Meeting
Why did the committee decide to kill the alternative approach to establishing camber in the front?
The above post is for reference only and your results may vary. This post is not intended to reflect the views or opinions of SCCA and should not be considered an analysis or opinion of the rules written in the GCR.
Re: August Meeting
Brian,
Not sure what you mean by 'alternative approach', but if you mean playing with the king pin bushings to increase camber, the reason was 2 fold.
1). The INTENT of the original rules as written (back in the 80's) *WAS* only to allow offset LINK PIN BUSHINGs. The other stuff was added later to allow clearancing of the end of the turkey leg to avoid binding. That has been extrapolated to include messing around with the carrier dogbone side and we decided to leave that part alone.
2). There is really no way to get any appreciable inclination by offsetting the king pin bushings without "clearancing" other parts of the dogbone .. that was clearly NOT the intent of the rule, so we decided to attempt to request a clarification of the original intent from the F/SR Committee/CRB. (We do NOT know what they will decide.)
Trying to gain additional offset via the king pin bushing seemed like it would involve considerably more (ILLEGAL) machine work and we wanted to make it clear, to keep our newer drivers from thinking they would have to travel down that path to keep up.
This class is NOT supposed to be about technological innovation or performing major machine work to keep up. It's SUPPOSED to be about prepping and driving what we have to the best of our ability. At least, that's the way I see it.
This is MY answer, but I think the rest of the Committee agrees with it more or less. We all agreed that playing around with offsetting the king pin bushings was NOT the intent of the original rule and that, since the question had been asked and it was clear that SOMEONE was at least thinking about doing it, we should attempt to clarify that in the rules.
If you are asking a different question, try to reformulate it and post again <g>.
Steve, FV80
Not sure what you mean by 'alternative approach', but if you mean playing with the king pin bushings to increase camber, the reason was 2 fold.
1). The INTENT of the original rules as written (back in the 80's) *WAS* only to allow offset LINK PIN BUSHINGs. The other stuff was added later to allow clearancing of the end of the turkey leg to avoid binding. That has been extrapolated to include messing around with the carrier dogbone side and we decided to leave that part alone.
2). There is really no way to get any appreciable inclination by offsetting the king pin bushings without "clearancing" other parts of the dogbone .. that was clearly NOT the intent of the rule, so we decided to attempt to request a clarification of the original intent from the F/SR Committee/CRB. (We do NOT know what they will decide.)
Trying to gain additional offset via the king pin bushing seemed like it would involve considerably more (ILLEGAL) machine work and we wanted to make it clear, to keep our newer drivers from thinking they would have to travel down that path to keep up.
This class is NOT supposed to be about technological innovation or performing major machine work to keep up. It's SUPPOSED to be about prepping and driving what we have to the best of our ability. At least, that's the way I see it.
This is MY answer, but I think the rest of the Committee agrees with it more or less. We all agreed that playing around with offsetting the king pin bushings was NOT the intent of the original rule and that, since the question had been asked and it was clear that SOMEONE was at least thinking about doing it, we should attempt to clarify that in the rules.
If you are asking a different question, try to reformulate it and post again <g>.
Steve, FV80
The Racer's Wedge and now a Vortech, FV80
Re: August Meeting
I'll chime in too.
I support what Steve has said as far as the committee's interpretation of the "intent" of the rules and their evolution. In our opinion, the intent of the rules was never to allow modifications of the carrier in the area of the king pin. If the exact wording of the rules does not support that intent, getting the rules clarified now to either support that intent, or not, is the right thing to do.
I support what Steve has said as far as the committee's interpretation of the "intent" of the rules and their evolution. In our opinion, the intent of the rules was never to allow modifications of the carrier in the area of the king pin. If the exact wording of the rules does not support that intent, getting the rules clarified now to either support that intent, or not, is the right thing to do.
Bruce
cendiv37
cendiv37