The FV Ad Hoc Committee met on February 22
Members attending: Steve Oseth, Stevan Davis, Bruce Livermore, Stephen Saslow, Phil Holcomb, John Petillo, Dietmar Bauerle
Guest: Fred Clark
Striving to get the best area representation, the Committee welcomed John Petillo to the group. John is representing the NE. With this addition, the Committee feels that we have the best representation from all areas of the country.
Old business:
Bruce received three more piston samples, bringing the total to 10, one being of Chinese origin. This particular sample demonstrated the need for further discussion as the Committee felt the Chinese piston did not meet the criteria when it came to the term: dimensionally identical as required in the GCR. Measuring ring grooves of 2mm instead of 2.5mm and their relation to the wrist pin, the Committee has determined that this piston is decidedly different than the stock samples measured and warrants further examination before making any recommendations. It should be noted that there was only a single sample for each piston, but the fact remains that at least some of the Chinese pistons are noticeably different from 8 other aftermarket and one original VW 1200 piston.
Since this piston is being considered for use primarily due to cost and apparent availability, the Committee is reaching out to the various engine builders in the country to see what their take is on the subject. This will help the Committee better understand the issues and decide what if any recommendation it should make to the CRB regarding the legality of the Chinese pistons. The builders will be provided with Bruce's measurements of all the pistons sampled , and we are asking what they would consider to be acceptable dimensions if it becomes necessary for a new "rule" to be established, and on what they based their recommendation.
A member of the community asked a question regarding the emulsion tube holder. Would the Committee support a request to have a "fix" for the emulsion tube holder similar to what was provided several years ago. Although we have yet to see an example, and although it should be "new business", we will also pose this question to the engine builders while we have their attention on the piston issue.
Spec Tire: The discussion of a spec tire again became the focus of the remaining time.
There have been comments made on the Interchange that adopting a spec tire simply entails adopting a tire currently in production and calling it THE spec tire for FV and making it THE tire for the next season. The Committee feels that it is not appropriate to try to adopt a spec tire before discussions with the manufacturers have been completed to see if they can meet the parameters set forth by the survey results.
Discussions have begun with Hoosier. The question was posed as to whether or not it is possible to make a tire that lasts longer, fits on the current rims, and will not degrade more than a specified amount from initial installation until its 10th cycle (as a minimum). There has been no definitive response yet and the question now will be posed directly to Bruce Foss at Hoosier.
A similar set of questions was posed to Goodyear and their response so far was to ask us a question: how do we view their current product and how close does it come to meeting the requirements that the survey has delineated. This was a fair question and we will try to get it answered.(Note: the discussion with Goodyear was expanded during the weekend and they will entertain further discussions to help in meeting the membership's goals.)
The correspondence with Hoosier and Goodyear gave us much to discuss, and subsequent discussions can now be more focused with each of them as we search for possible options.
It is imperative that we give both major manufacturers an equal opportunity to try to meet our needs and this will require continued discussions with both. There was discussion about adding American Racer to the list. The majority felt that American Racer is only known on the west coast and that they might not be able to provide support for the racers nationwide at the current level that most are accustomed to.
A question raised during the discussion was whether or not we think a spec tire will be cheaper when it comes to initial purchase. The Committee feels that this may not be the case. The tire manufacturer will produce a tire, and depending on their research and development costs will charge whatever they deem appropriate to cover their investment, although understanding that they are in competition to be a sole provider and price will likely be one criteria in the selection process. Another concern raised was that the company that loses out would be out of the FV business and may not come back if the chosen spec tire fails to meet the community’s expectations after a year or two. The Committee believes that any savings provided by an acceptable spec tire will most likely come from improved longevity similar to that defined for the slick tire choice in the survey.
Although the Committee is divided on the prospect of a spec tire, the Committee as a whole will investigate the options, report the findings, and make a RECOMMENDATION once the manufacturers have been given adequate time to respond to our questions. If their response is that it can not be done (to meet the FV community's expressed requirements for tire size, longevity, and cost) then we will report this back to the community. If their response is positive, the next challenge will be preparing a spec tire proposal and discussing it with the SCCA. The proposal will embody both what the community has indicated they want through the survey just completed and what the manufacturers say is possible. If the SCCA can be convinced that a spec tire is "right" for FV, and they receive member input in support of a spec tire for FV, the committee will begin discussions of how, when, and by whom tire tests will be conducted. Tire testing will be required at some point since we can not simply make the assumption that a tire will meet all the requirements without making some comparison tests. We must also allow all qualified and interested manufacturers a chance to become the supplier. Again, all of this will be predicated by the response from the manufacturers.
The question of adding weight to FV was not discussed due to time constraints and has been tabled for future meetings.
No other topics were presented or discussed.
Next meeting scheduled for March 28