October minutes

Post Reply
Site Admin
Posts: 631
Joined: June 24th, 2006, 11:56 am

October minutes

Post by Dietmar »

The FV Ad Hoc Committee met on October 24
Members attending: Steve Oseth, John Petillo, Stevan Davis, Bruce Livermore, Phillip Holcomb, Barrett Hendricks, Stephen Saslow, Dietmar Bauerle
Guest: Fred Clark

A question was raised on the Interchange regarding the 50th Birthday Party and the requirement for head and neck restraints. Since Fred Clark was attending the meeting, a brief explanation of the requirements was garnered as follows: Those members whose organization (read SCCA) currently requires the use of a head and neck restraint will be required to use one at the 50th. Members of other organizations who do not currently mandate their use are STRONGLY encouraged to use a device for this event. Although Fred is waiting for some final wording on some other matters, the H&N issue has been approved and will appear as an official statement shortly.

Pistons: Still a hot topic with the Committee. In previous meetings the Committee came up with a recommended standard to do away with the nebulous “dimensionally identical” reference in the GCR. This recommendation will be the topic of discussion at the next FSR Committee meeting to see if it should be deemed a “clarification” of the current rules. In addition, a written request to allow a 2mm ring groove has been submitted by a member and the FSR Committee will also address this request to determine if it should be regarded as a rule change and put out for member input.

Wheel pants (inner wheel covers). No action has been taken by the Committee with regards to wheel pants and their legality ( or non legality). The majority of the Committee agree that their use, based on the glossary definition of BODYWORK in the GCR, would make them legal. This does not mean that the Committee is in favor of their use. Most would agree that they are not within the spirit of the rules, but they are legal. The FSR Committee will also discuss this issue at their next meeting and depending on the outcome of their discussion, will either forward their recommendations to the CRB for action- either to put the question to the membership for a possible rule change, a clarification, or even refer the matter back to the Ad Hoc Committee for further input.

As a result of the wheel pants discussions, the Ad Hoc Committee feels that there is a real problem with the application of the GCR glossary when it comes to multiple car classes and multiple configurations (open vs. closed wheel). The term BODYWORK in FV was , in our opinion, never intended to include items attached to a suspension component as in the case of wheel pants. In the opinion of one member, the GCR glossary definition of BODYWORK for open wheel cars is “absurd and needs to be FIXED” to which we all agreed. It is interesting to note that the FF rules were carefully reworked to address this issue after the glossary was added to the GCR. The committee welcomes feedback on (1) whether the GCR glossary definition of bodywork is suitable for FV and (2) whether defining bodywork more like it is in FF would be more suitable for the class.

It should be noted that rule "changes" for either pistons or wheel pants are highly unlikely for the 2013 season regardless of any actions taken by the FSRC or CRB. Rules clarifications (possibly for piston dimensions) are still possible for the 2013 season.

Carbotech brake update: brake shoes are being manufactured right now using a new material. Once a production run is completed, it is expected that the shoes will be tested on some competitors’ cars to be sure they perform as well as the old material. This will hopefully get done in late December-early January at various tracks.

No other topics were presented or discussed.
Next meeting scheduled for November 28
Posts: 26
Joined: May 13th, 2008, 5:43 pm

Re: October minutes

Post by GT6 »

Are we able to see letters written to the CRB? I'd like to see what seemed to be dismissed quickly by the CRB in the last Fastrack. Particularly letters 9182 and 9401.

Thank you, Anthony.
Anthony Parker
Site Admin
Posts: 1168
Joined: June 27th, 2006, 9:07 am

Re: October minutes

Post by FV80 »

Unfortunately, NO - we can't. I'm not sure WHY SCCA has to be so 'terse' in their response. It is quite difficult to figure out what is going on - what has been requested and denied or allowed.

Steve, FV80
The Racer's Wedge and now a Vortech, FV80
To sign up in the FV Registry for updates about SCCA Formula Vee, please send me an email or PM with your name, location (city/state), make/model of car, phone # and any other appropriate info.
Posts: 1348
Joined: June 26th, 2006, 12:31 pm

Re: October minutes

Post by brian »

The CRB responds to hundreds of letters monthly; they're being brief is a matter of time and consistency. The letters are kept confidential at the request of many authors. SInce the author's name is posted in Fastrac, one could contact them directly and ask that they publish the contents of their letter.
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.
Post Reply