June Minutes

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

June Minutes

Post by Dietmar »

The FV Ad Hoc Committee met on June 26

Members attending: Steve Oseth, John Petillo, Stevan Davis, Phillip Holcomb, Alex Bertolucci, Barret Hendricks, Stephen Saslow,
Dietmar Bauerle

Guest: Fred Clark

New Business:

The FSR Committee has begun receiving responses from members to the three FV related letters published in June Fastrack; one requesting the allowance of removable head surrounds in FV, a second proposing an appropriate definition of BODYWORK to be added within the FV rules, and a third requesting a clarification of …”bodywork forward of the center of the beam” under Errors and Omissions.

The FSR Committee has asked the Ad Hoc Committee to add some additional wording, regarding brake ducts, to the definition of BODYWORK revision request. A Committee member will be formulating that additional wording and submitting it to the FSR Committee.

If anyone has an opinion for or against any of these items, they should review them in the June Fastrack and then voice their opinion now by writing the CRB.

New Item: (Not so new)

SCCA received a letter from a member requesting the allowance of disc brakes in FV. The FSR Committee has requested that the Ad Hoc Committee begin discussion on this topic and return to the FSRC with our opinion as to possible implementation.

Background:
When this topic was discussed at length more than eight years ago, the Committee brought it up for discussion in the FV community and the majority did not want any change. Eight years later, current parts supply issues and costs might make such an allowance more attractive. For this reason, the Committee will begin discussion of allowing disc brakes in FV.

From this month’s initial discussion, it is the preliminary opinion of the Committee that IF discs are to be allowed, they be allowed only when mounted on a ball joint beam, not a link pin beam. The intent is to compensate for any real or perceived increased performance from disc brakes with the increased weight of the ball joint beam. Another reason for allowing disc brakes only on ball joint beams is to create a clearly defined conversion process which would eliminate possible confusion resulting from "mixing and matching" between various beam and brake types. These were just preliminary discussions and the Committee members did not delve deeply into any of the ramifications. That was left to future discussions.

Old Business:

Still trying to get a definitive answer from Kolbenschmidt regarding pistons/cylinder availability

No other items were presented or discussed.

Next meeting July 24
Post Reply