June Minutes

[Dietmar]

The FV Ad Hoc Committee met on June 27

Members attending: Steve Oseth, Stevan Davis, John Petillo, Bruce Livermore, Alex Bertolucci, Phil Holcomb, Stephen Saslow, Dietmar Bauerle

Guest: Fred Clark

FYI:
A new track in the Pacific Northwest will hold its first event later in July and looks to be a well planned facility.

PISTONS:
For the past few months, the Committee has been discussing the need for clarification with regard to the interpretation of “dimensionally identical” for pistons. After measuring multiple samples of pistons in current use and those manufactured in the past by various companies, the Committee has formulated a proposal to clarify the meaning of "dimensionally identical". In short, the Committee feels that there is a need to include some recommended measurements in the GCR to prevent rules creep and avoid problems now and in the future.

Since the Committee does not make rules, we are in the process of contacting the major engine builders to get their input on our recommendations. None of the recommendations are really new, they are just being stated in a fashion to eliminate the nebulous “dimensionally identical” wording in the GCR, and it will have the important benefit of providing clarification (with less interpretation) during a tech inspection. For example, the maximum distance from the bottom of the wrist pin to the top of the #1 compression ring (item b. below) was a specific concern because of the slight effect on the compression ratio and has previously been uncontrolled other than the "dimensionally identical" wording. The maximum distance recommendation was a result of all samples taken over the past few months.


The opinion of the Committee is that the rules for FV be modified to include the following clarification:
C.5.C.

4. Pistons and wrist pins minimum combined weight without clips
or piston rings = 330.0 grams
As clarification of the definition of “same material” and “dimensionally identical” regarding pistons, at minimum, the following shall be observed:

a. Piston material shall be cast aluminum with steel inserts.
b. Maximum distance from bottom of wrist pin bore to top of #1 (top) compression ring groove: 1.655 inches (20 mm wrist pin bore assumed).
c. Width of #1 and #2 (compression) ring grooves: .100 +/- .003 inches (2.5mm nominal)
d. Width of #3 (oil) ring groove: .158 +/- .003 inches (4.0mm nominal)


No other items were presented or discussed. Next meeting scheduled for July 25

[SR Racing]

I know most of you (forum members) don't write letters to the CRB. I suggest you do if this goes to a vote. If the committee's suggested measurements are voted on, and it passes you have again raised the price of the FV engines. Chinese pitons are available and they are just as good as the prior KS, Mahel, etc. They do however have 2mm ring gaps. They are half the price and at this time readily available. There is no advantage to a 2mm ring gap, since rings are free and with dykes and spacers ALL pistons effectively have a 2mm or smaller gap.

I can ONLY see one reason for pushing this spec: There are board members or associates that have lots of K&S in stock and/or like the additional profit margins that the K&S, etc. provides. Get off of your hands and vote. (I might note that the advisory board also has member(s) that are FV engine builders. ) Only a significant number of letters written against this spec will keep the prices in check.

We (SR) build/rebuild 4 or 5 FV engines a month. While the extra dollars are nice, I do not see another increase in Vee engine prices in the best interest of the Vee community. The ONLY good side I see to this is that it makes FST engines even MORE attractive in pricing.

[Bob Posner]

Seems ridiculous to conceive of increasing the machined groove to 2.5mm and then spacer it back to 2.0mm. for those of us using the Chinese piston. How is this in the class's best interest?

[FV80]

If anyone agrees with the above comments, please petition the CRB for a rules CHANGE to allow 2mm ring grooves. Currently, according to the GCR, the Chinese pistons are NOT legal - they are not 'dimensionally identical' to VW (or KS) pistons - nor are they particularly close (in at least 2 dimensions). The fact that they are ADVERTISED for 1200 CC engines does not make them legal according to the GCR.

To the best of my knowledge no one (in the USA) - on the Committee, or otherwise - has any significant stock of K/S pistons and/or cylinders at this time. We recognize the issue, but THIS particular clarification is related to the RULES as they stand - not supply. We have debated several months before deciding to SUGGEST CLARIFICATION of the EXISTING RULES in order to avoid another fiasco like the manifold issue. Making a rules CHANGE to allow 2mm ring grooves might be in the best interest of the class ... as long as the rest of these clarifications are also included (except, of course, for the 2.5mm ring groove measurement). Please see first paragraph above...

Steve, FV80

[FV80]

Also, in case you missed it, the following sentence fragment is included in the minutes...
"we are in the process of contacting the major engine builders to get their input on our recommendations"

The Committee has not yet made any suggestion to the CRB or any other part of SCCA. We are now seeking (i.e. SEEKING .. not "have sought" - so we have not actually sent the request out yet) input from the engine builders - at least those that we are aware of. We HAVE contacted and received input from 2 or 3 (just because they were 'convenient') - but not all.

It is quite possible that the CRB could receive and act on a member request to allow 2 mm ring grooves before they hear anything officially from the Committee.

Steve, FV80

[SR Racing]

If anyone agrees with the above comments, please petition the CRB for a rules CHANGE to allow 2mm ring grooves. Currently, according to the GCR, the Chinese pistons are NOT legal - they are not 'dimensionally identical' to VW (or KS) pistons - nor are they particularly close (in at least 2 dimensions). The fact that they are ADVERTISED for 1200 CC engines does not make them legal according to the GCR.

I know that and I (like most others) thought the Committee was helping to act as a focus point to do that best thing for the class. The Chinese pistons are the only ones in production, they are available and they are 1/2 the price (or less). We knew that the rules had to be changed (or clarified). I assumed that the committee would do the best thing for the class. I can't imagine suggesting the above rules are anywhere near the best thing for the class. The committees post says: "The opinion of the Committee is that the rules for FV be modified to include the following clarification:" Are you now saying that the opinion is not final until they contact other builders?

What IS the commitees purpose ? We all knew the Chinese pistons were available and that they could be considered out of compliance. One would have thought the commitee would have acted as this focal point and suggested a clarification to the CRB that allowed the C Pistons. Now we see that the committee simply suggests clarififying therules to make sure the Chinese are NOT allowed and if the FV body doesn't like it they should suggest their own rules? You KNOW what a mess that would be. There would be 20 different rules and no concensus.

So, again. Please tell us what the committee thinks their mission should be? Also can you tell us TECHNICALLY why the suggested rule was written to eliminate the Chinese pistons?

(BTW, other than what is best for FV, I have no vested interest. I have 1 set of C P&C's and 1 set of K&S. I was waiting for a decent Commitee action before I stocked up on any. There is literally no financial impact to me either way.)

[cendiv37]

Jim, do you really think 2mm is "dimensionally identical" to 2.5mm when it comes to piston ring grooves?

I don't believe I'd be able to put a real VW 40 hp top ring into one of those 2mm grooves, and I think that's a pretty good indication that those grooves aren't quite "dimensionally identical".

So now who really is the one who is arbitrarily interpreting the rules to their benefit regardless of obvious (to an engine builder at least) differences in dimensions of the parts when the rules specifically require "dimensionally identical" parts?

You say you have no financial interest. Then I just have to ask, how long have you been selling these AA pistons? You make it sound like that one set that you have in stock was just recently purchased and you've purchased and sold none previously. We both know that's not true. How many sets had you actually sold before someone questioned their legality publicly?

IF you have finally seen fit to ask for a rule change to make what you have been selling legal, how long had you been selling them before asking that the rules be changed to allow them.?

One more time:
Who is the one who is arbitrarily interpreting the rules to their advantage???

[SR Racing]

Jim, do you really think 2mm is "dimensionally identical" to 2.5mm when it comes to piston ring grooves?

First of all, "dimesionally identical means nothing. There are NO P&C's "dimensionally identical." It was simply poor word usage in the GCR.

Go back and read my post. I and others KNEW that the ring gap was in question. I thought the Committee would clarify the rules to allow for the C P&C's.

So now who really is the one who is arbitrarily interpreting the rules to their benefit regardless of obvious (to an engine builder at least) differences in dimensions of the parts when the rules specifically require "dimensionally identical" parts?

Go back again and read my post. I interpreted the rules CORRECTLY. And received no benefit financially or otherwise from my actions.

You say you have no financial interest. Then I just have to ask, how long have you been selling these AA pistons? You make it sound like that one set that you have in stock was just recently purchased and you've purchased and sold none previously. We both know that's not true. How many sets had you actually sold before someone questioned their legality publicly?

I resent the accusation. I HAVE sold several sets. Probably about 3 to FV and probably 2 were vintage. I did another 2 for Vintage VW Street cars. The FV customers were ALL advised that at the present time the pistons could be considered illegal. They could have spent twice as much for the K&S. (In actual discussions with these customers, we both certainly assumed that the rules would be clarified and C's would be allowed.) I would have made more money selliong them K&S. I have also advised potential parts customers of the issue.

IF you have finally seen fit to ask for a rule change to make what you have been selling legal, how long had you been selling them before asking that the rules be changed to allow them.?

See above.

One more time:
Who is the one who is arbitrarily interpreting the rules to their advantage???

One more time: See my original post and the above paragraphs.
I DID NOT arbritrarily interpret the rules. I knew that they were in question and advised customers and talked with at least one committee member (informally) and said the same thing. (At the time they agreed with me and felt there was some vested interest in the committee. I (wrongfully) assumed that the committee would do the best thing for the class.

I would still like to hear the technical and/or financial reason that the C's will be disallowed via the Commitee's suggested rules. ?

I know you guys hate hearing this... But we (FST community) have spent hundreds of hours trying to keep prices down and parts available on the FST, by testing and allowing better aftermarket, etc. I know you couldn't deal with many of the FST changes, but IMO, here was a chance for the FV committee to do the same with a few simple wording changes and again IMO you did not do what was best for the class.

[cendiv37]

Jim,

In one thing we agree: "dimensionally identical" is physically impossible and therefore a terrible way to write rules. I've been hammering away for years as best I can on the committee, the FSRC and with the crb about the many vague and unenforceable rules in the GCR.

However, a 20% difference in a critical, easily measurable dimension is clearly outside the range of what might reasonably be interpreted as "dimensionally identical". You have had plenty of time to request a rule change but did not.

Are the Chinese pistons legal by the current rules? By any reasonable interpretation of the current rules which require "dimensionally identical", I think not.

Should they be made legal by a properly vetted rule change? That's a different question.

[brian]

Since I was one of the first to challenge the Chinese P&C's, I would like to apologize to all for the problems and confusion this issue has become. Years ago, I asked the CRB to make ring grooves free to eliminate the cost of spacers required to use state of the art rings. That request was denied. When I purchased a set of the Chinese P&C's to check out, I realized they weren't compliant and asked that this issue be resolved by the committee and the CRB. The commitee, especially Bruce, have done a ton of work to come up with a solution and they really don't deserve all this static.

Frankly, if you want to use the Chinese stuff, feel free and ask the CRB to allow 2.0 grooves and be done with it. That opportunity has been presented already.

PERSONAL OPINION: I consider the chinese stuff inferior. The fins are smaller and don't cool as well; the cylinder bases are too narrow to facilitate a proper fit on late model cases; the ring groove are too large and create high rpm ring flutter and finally, in addition to having a 360 degree piston skirt that increases drag, there have been several instances where these pistons have failed. Besides, by the time you spend enough money to machine and source unique spacers to bring these assemblies up to specs, your savings are gone. I know Jim, your results are different, and please, I don't need another snarky reference to FFirst.

[SR Racing]

You have had plenty of time to request a rule change but did not.

And the committee did not? I was one of the people who thought the focus of the commitee on behalf of all FV drivers was their purpose.
I COULD have written a rule and there would be a dozen other suggestions. So no reasonable concensus. I (mistakenly) assumed the committee would add focus and do the right thing.

The commitee, especially Bruce, have done a ton of work to come up with a solution and they really don't deserve all this static.

I have no doubt re: the time and work. That isn't the issue. In regards to "static" did they feel there should be no questioning of their actions?

I consider the chinese stuff inferior.

Arguable (I never had any special likes for the Brazilian, Mexican, etc. parts either.

The fins are smaller and don't cool as well; the cylinder bases are too narrow to facilitate a proper fit on late model cases; the ring groove are too large and create high rpm ring flutter

We have had no problem fitting them. The blowby measurements are EXACTLY the same at all RPMS on the dyno. So how do you come up with your flutter measurments ?

there have been several instances where these pistons have failed.

Examples and reasons?

Besides, by the time you spend enough money to machine and source unique spacers to bring these assemblies up to specs, your savings are gone.

We order dykes type rings and spacers at 200+ at a time. They would have no problem making any spacers at those quantities at no additional cost.

I know Jim, your results are different, and please, I don't need another snarky reference to FFirst.

Snarky = sarcastically critical or mocking and malicious ? I was certainly not sarcastic or malicious. Exactly why do the sucessfull actions of FST bother some so much?

You guys (committee) can stick with your suggested rule. I only hope the body writes enough letters to make it not active. I only have one set of Chinese ones in stock to have to sell. It appears that people on the side of the suggested rule have several K&S to sell. So maybe the rule is best for a few people.

[satterley_sr]

Why do we get AA to make them with a 2.5 mm groove. Looks like all the AA stuff is cnc machined.

[brian]

I do know that someone who has talked to the importer about some changes. It has proven challenging with little results. Anyone try to talk to a Chinese exporter? It's not easy.

VW spec for ring to groove clearance is .004 max. The set of AA I bought came out of the box with .004 and given my experience with ring life with that much clearance, I decided to pass. It won't show up on a dyno, but in a few weekends it will crop up. Jim was right, some of the Brazilian parts were crap as well. Forget about the GCR, at least the Brazilian stuff met the specs listed by VW.

Everything I've worked with that's come from China is junk. Ever buy something with moving parts from Harbor Freight? It either went up in smoke or started to leak within hours of use. The way I look at is that since it costs nearly $1000 a weekend to race now a days, why worry about $150 bucks on P&C's when the investment in German quality will buy you an extra season or more.

[hardingfv32-1]

Seems odd to lock-in a set of rules that requires use of parts that are not in production and/or available from a retail site.

Brian

[cendiv37]

Just trying to "lock in" what the rules actually are today. What they should be in the future is subject to debate. Lots of future options on pistons themselves, not so many on cylinders...

[SR Racing]

For those who mght not be as familiar with what the change in upper ring placement means:

The gasses seal at the top ring grove. On a Vee, the cylinders are honed out to maximum to get max displacement.
So while we compute the compression ratio using cylinder displacement vs. combustion chamber volume, the REAL combustion chamber volume would include the gasses that are between the cylinder wall and the top ring. Thus, the more gases there the lower the CR.

The higher the ring in the piston the less gasses there. All new aftermarket pistons for performance engines have the ring as high as possible. We just built a 190 HP AC VW for a customer with pistons like that. (It of course had a lot of other things done to it. )

That being said: A increase of 1 in CR (8:1 to 9:1) gives you about 3% more HP. (rule of thumb) If we put the ring at the TOP of the piston you might be in in the .005 area. (8:1 to 8.005:1) So you might be talking about .01 HP assuming you could measure it. In the case of the AA vs. the KS pistons where the ring might be moved up very little.. God couldn't even measure it.

If you see a rule that comes up for comment on the piston specs PLEASE write the board and make sure that a 2mm gap is allowed (and piston rings are free) and the AA (Chinese or others) are allowed.