September Minutes
Posted: September 28th, 2012, 11:12 pm
The FV Ad Hoc Committee met on September 26
Members attending: Steve Oseth, Stevan Davis, John Petillo, Bruce Livermore, Alex Bertolucci, Phil Holcomb, Stephen Saslow, Dietmar Bauerle
Guest: Fred Clark
Since most of the Committee did not attend the Runoffs, the first discussion centered around our observations and reactions to what we viewed on SpeedCast . Great racing within the different packs of cars, but we were less than impressed with some poor decisions on the part of officials , namely the waving of the green flag when one of the competitors was in the process of “flying through the air” and what appeared to be a lack of enthusiasm by some when waving the yellow flag at one or more turns when cars were positioned in a rather precarious position on track. Whether valid or not, these were some of our observations.
PISTONS: Our last few meetings centered around the definition of dimensionally identical and how that term applied to pistons used in FV. A letter was drafted and sent to the FSR Committee suggesting that the accepted standard for a FV piston be recognized as having a 2.5mm ring groove in the first and second groove and a 4mm groove for the oil ring. In addition, a minimum set of measurements was proposed including one for the distance from the top of the first ring groove to the bottom of the wrist pin bore. The CRB has referred the matter back to the FSRC in order to add an additional dimension before considering a rule clarification (to control the shape of the piston below the oil ring groove since it is not round). Data on this dimension was collected by the commitee but dimensional limits were not included in the proposal submitted.
Separate from the Committee’s group letter, a written request was made by a member to allow the use of an alternate piston using a 2mm ring groove. We have been told that the FSR Committee has rejected this request. This is not to say that this topic might not be revisited if the supply of K/S ( or pistons meeting the specs) are depleted. It is then that the Committee would present a new proposal for a rules change-if there is such a need. In the meantime, Steve Oseth will be in contact with K/S to begin the order process to insure the availability of K/S piston and cylinder sets .
Inside wheel covers- described by some as “wheel pants” were used at this year’s Runoffs and discussion ensued. The Committee members discussed the question of legality which revolves around the GCR definition of bodywork and other details. After a considerable amount of time, we realized that legality was not the main issue but rather whether allowing these items was for the good of the class. Whether these covers actually are a performance advantage or not is unclear. On whether they should be specifically outlawed, the committee was divided. However, the majority of the Committee agreed that these might be perceived as being an advantage and therefore necessary to remain competitive and that this would not be good for the class. For this reason the Committee will draft a letter requesting member input on a rule change to specifically NOT allow these items in future events.
The topic of disc brakes has once again surfaced and the Committee wanted to have some discussion, but due to time constraints, will wait for the next meeting before revisiting this topic.
The Committee also reiterates that we are open to comments from the membership by contacting any or all of the members of the Committee
No other items were presented or discussed.
Next meeting scheduled for October 24.
Members attending: Steve Oseth, Stevan Davis, John Petillo, Bruce Livermore, Alex Bertolucci, Phil Holcomb, Stephen Saslow, Dietmar Bauerle
Guest: Fred Clark
Since most of the Committee did not attend the Runoffs, the first discussion centered around our observations and reactions to what we viewed on SpeedCast . Great racing within the different packs of cars, but we were less than impressed with some poor decisions on the part of officials , namely the waving of the green flag when one of the competitors was in the process of “flying through the air” and what appeared to be a lack of enthusiasm by some when waving the yellow flag at one or more turns when cars were positioned in a rather precarious position on track. Whether valid or not, these were some of our observations.
PISTONS: Our last few meetings centered around the definition of dimensionally identical and how that term applied to pistons used in FV. A letter was drafted and sent to the FSR Committee suggesting that the accepted standard for a FV piston be recognized as having a 2.5mm ring groove in the first and second groove and a 4mm groove for the oil ring. In addition, a minimum set of measurements was proposed including one for the distance from the top of the first ring groove to the bottom of the wrist pin bore. The CRB has referred the matter back to the FSRC in order to add an additional dimension before considering a rule clarification (to control the shape of the piston below the oil ring groove since it is not round). Data on this dimension was collected by the commitee but dimensional limits were not included in the proposal submitted.
Separate from the Committee’s group letter, a written request was made by a member to allow the use of an alternate piston using a 2mm ring groove. We have been told that the FSR Committee has rejected this request. This is not to say that this topic might not be revisited if the supply of K/S ( or pistons meeting the specs) are depleted. It is then that the Committee would present a new proposal for a rules change-if there is such a need. In the meantime, Steve Oseth will be in contact with K/S to begin the order process to insure the availability of K/S piston and cylinder sets .
Inside wheel covers- described by some as “wheel pants” were used at this year’s Runoffs and discussion ensued. The Committee members discussed the question of legality which revolves around the GCR definition of bodywork and other details. After a considerable amount of time, we realized that legality was not the main issue but rather whether allowing these items was for the good of the class. Whether these covers actually are a performance advantage or not is unclear. On whether they should be specifically outlawed, the committee was divided. However, the majority of the Committee agreed that these might be perceived as being an advantage and therefore necessary to remain competitive and that this would not be good for the class. For this reason the Committee will draft a letter requesting member input on a rule change to specifically NOT allow these items in future events.
The topic of disc brakes has once again surfaced and the Committee wanted to have some discussion, but due to time constraints, will wait for the next meeting before revisiting this topic.
The Committee also reiterates that we are open to comments from the membership by contacting any or all of the members of the Committee
No other items were presented or discussed.
Next meeting scheduled for October 24.