August Minutes

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

August Minutes

Post by Dietmar »

The FV Ad Hoc Committee met on August 28

Members attending: Steve Oseth, Stevan Davis, Barret Hendricks, Alex Bertolucci, Bruce Livermore, Stephen Saslow, Dietmar Bauerle

Guest: Fred Clark


As a result of a letter sent by a member to the CRB, the Ad Hoc Committee was asked to formulate a recommendation on how to allow disc brakes in FV and to submit the letter to SCCA for their discussions.
Therefore, the Ad Hoc Committee continued the discussion regarding the transition to a ball joint beam and disc brakes. Several questions arose with varying opinions but in the end, the Committee agreed that a recommendation will be sent to SCCA for their consideration as requested.

Briefly, the letter being drafted will recommend that BJ beams be allowed in FV for those competitors who feel that there is a need to make the conversion to disc brakes. The recommendation will also recommend allowing disc brakes front and rear, using stock front VW Type 1 calipers ( no lightening) both front and rear and requiring the use of, stock 4 bolt steel wheels with any disc brake conversion. The letter will also recommend that when using the ball joint beam, removal of the shock tower would be allowed along with relocating the upper shock mount to a location above the top tube of the beam. As far as possible, specific minimum weights would be required for specific conversion components.

The Committee also discussed an appropriate minimum weight increase for cars incorporating disc brakes. Based on the weights of components we are familiar with, the Committee feels that just switching to the required ball joint and disc brake components will increase the weight of an FV. The Committee as a whole agreed upon a MINIMUM weight increase to 1050 pounds for cars that convert to disc brakes with the understanding that if needed, this weight “penalty” could and should be adjusted once it is determined if there is an advantage or disadvantage switching to the alternate configuration.

The letter will be formulated and sent to SCCA. If accepted, we assume that it will be put out for member input.



No other topics were presented or discussed.
Next meeting scheduled for Sept 25
SR Racing
Posts: 1209
Joined: June 24th, 2006, 1:58 pm

Re: August Minutes

Post by SR Racing »

Sounds good. I think your weight proposal is in the ball park. After cutting off the shock towers and adding discs, the delta will be close to your plan...
tiagosantos
Posts: 391
Joined: June 20th, 2010, 12:10 am

Re: August Minutes

Post by tiagosantos »

:)
fvracer27
Posts: 247
Joined: October 25th, 2009, 8:40 pm

Re: August Minutes

Post by fvracer27 »

Dietmar will the proposal recomend using the current FST front beam rules? Meaning same beam, same shock tower mods, same calipers and rotors? Also will inboard shocks be allowed? And for the rear disc brakes are they the same caliper bracket as FST etc. Will BJ beams be allowed to have the 2 mounting brackets removed and a aftermarket set matching the LP beam mounting holes so some cars will not need to modify the chassis?

I think if it's allowed it should be only if the parts are the same as FST which is already out there and has been tested.


Jim

Can you explain how the rear FST brakes are mounted? There is a bracket to accept the caliper I asume, is it a aftermarket item or is it factory VW? How is it made and how is it to install? I have read people talking about shimming the caliper bracket for allignment does this need to be done? Thank you



This will be comical to watch someone that can not adjust drum brakes put a BJ beam on modify the body, most likely the chassis, shock towers and what ever is required to get the rear disc brakes on the car. Get the check book out because people are going to asume you need Disc Brakes to be up front.
Mark Filip
NER #27
Womer EV-3
BLS
Posts: 412
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 7:52 pm

Re: August Minutes

Post by BLS »

Get the check book out because people are going to asume you need Disc Brakes to be up front
Not if the guys up front have LP beams and drum brakes...
Barry
Old Zink FV,
'87 Citation
fvracer27
Posts: 247
Joined: October 25th, 2009, 8:40 pm

Re: August Minutes

Post by fvracer27 »

BLS wrote:
Get the check book out because people are going to asume you need Disc Brakes to be up front
Not if the guys up front have LP beams and drum brakes...
Very true
Mark Filip
NER #27
Womer EV-3
FV80
Site Admin
Posts: 1168
Joined: June 27th, 2006, 9:07 am

Re: August Minutes

Post by FV80 »

fvracer27 wrote:Dietmar will the proposal recomend using the current FST front beam rules? Meaning same beam, same shock tower mods, same calipers and rotors? Also will inboard shocks be allowed? And for the rear disc brakes are they the same caliper bracket as FST etc. Will BJ beams be allowed to have the 2 mounting brackets removed and a aftermarket set matching the LP beam mounting holes so some cars will not need to modify the chassis?
Dietmar is traveling at the moment, so I'll answer for him..
Basically YES.. *EXCEPT* for inboard suspension and steering racks. Whatever shocks are used will probably have to be "vertical" and outside the bodywork. I am not aware of "aftermarket set matching the LP beam mounting holes", but our proposed wording would not prohibit that I think.
fvracer27 wrote:I think if it's allowed it should be only if the parts are the same as FST which is already out there and has been tested.
Yes .. we agree, except for the allowance for inboard mechanisms. This will likely be updated in later years, but is how we want to start. You may also notice that there is NO PROVISION (as yet) for LP disc brake conversions. This is really because we have no information on how likely they might be to BREAK in our application and don't want to start a melee of senseless CRASHES. The VW BJ beam is a proven commodity. A small step for man ....

We are open for input .. and the proposal will presumably go out for member input in the next month or so.

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.
problemchild
Posts: 902
Joined: June 25th, 2006, 9:34 am

Re: August Minutes

Post by problemchild »

I realize that this is the beginning of a process, but all the energy that will be spent trying to make this happen for however many years or decades it takes ..... could be spent converting cars to FST in the immediate future, or finding a great control tire.

As for rear disc brakes, whether the rules allow them or not, they are cheap Chinese POS that add about 10+ lbs of rotating weight per rear corner with no performance advantage. 4 bolt VW drums (with minor machinework) are a much better option that can be used with the current rear brake package. Ronnie Chuck told me that 10 yrs ago and I found it to be true in my FST experience.
Greg Rice
"Happy 50th Birthday"
fvracer27
Posts: 247
Joined: October 25th, 2009, 8:40 pm

Re: August Minutes

Post by fvracer27 »

Steve thanks for the information. I think I was not clear about what I asked when I was talking about the 2 brackets for mounting, I believe you thought I was referring to the shock mounts? I was asking about the 2 vertical braces that connect the upper tube to the lower tube and each one has 2 holes used to bolt the beam to the chassis. The mounting holes as well as the spacing is different from LP beam to BJ beam, I was wondering if these 2 braces could be removed off the BJ beam and replaced with braces with LP beam hole spacing so that there is not a need to modify the chassis on most cars. Man I know that was confusing :shock: I think I just confused myself.

I agree with the no inboard shocks at this time.

I also have strong agreement with no LP disc conversion. I do think there are some good ones out there but they are in the $900 range and at that point just use what is already a known item with the FST front disc set up.
Mark Filip
NER #27
Womer EV-3
fvracer27
Posts: 247
Joined: October 25th, 2009, 8:40 pm

Re: August Minutes

Post by fvracer27 »

problemchild wrote:I realize that this is the beginning of a process, but all the energy that will be spent trying to make this happen for however many years or decades it takes ..... could be spent converting cars to FST in the immediate future, or finding a great control tire.

As for rear disc brakes, whether the rules allow them or not, they are cheap Chinese POS that add about 10+ lbs of rotating weight per rear corner with no performance advantage. 4 bolt VW drums (with minor machinework) are a much better option that can be used with the current rear brake package. Ronnie Chuck told me that 10 yrs ago and I found it to be true in my FST experience.
Im not a big fan of cheap Chinese parts I was hoping that the rear brakes used on a FST were a VW item. What type of machine work is needed to make 4 bolt drums work, also could 4 bolt front drums be used? I wonder if the front 4 bolt drums are lighter than the disc set up. The BJ beam is nice with the ability to adjust camber and it would be nice if you could choose to use the BJ beam with drums or Disc. Are 4 bolt wheels plentiful? That would solve the wheel problem some are having.
Mark Filip
NER #27
Womer EV-3
problemchild
Posts: 902
Joined: June 25th, 2006, 9:34 am

Re: August Minutes

Post by problemchild »

fvracer27 wrote:
problemchild wrote:I realize that this is the beginning of a process, but all the energy that will be spent trying to make this happen for however many years or decades it takes ..... could be spent converting cars to FST in the immediate future, or finding a great control tire.

As for rear disc brakes, whether the rules allow them or not, they are cheap Chinese POS that add about 10+ lbs of rotating weight per rear corner with no performance advantage. 4 bolt VW drums (with minor machinework) are a much better option that can be used with the current rear brake package. Ronnie Chuck told me that 10 yrs ago and I found it to be true in my FST experience.
Im not a big fan of cheap Chinese parts I was hoping that the rear brakes used on a FST were a VW item. What type of machine work is needed to make 4 bolt drums work, also could 4 bolt front drums be used? I wonder if the front 4 bolt drums are lighter than the disc set up. The BJ beam is nice with the ability to adjust camber and it would be nice if you could choose to use the BJ beam with drums or Disc. Are 4 bolt wheels plentiful? That would solve the wheel problem some are having.
You just need to turn a small amount (I don't remember .... say .300") of the outer edge where the nut sits. The front drums can certainly be used, but people want discs. My problem with the rear disc kit that it has a net performance deficiency. That's why the FST guys banned drums. Cars with junkyard rear drums were winning races with a perceived advantage. Any other rear disc options are much more expensive.
Greg Rice
"Happy 50th Birthday"
SR Racing
Posts: 1209
Joined: June 24th, 2006, 1:58 pm

Re: August Minutes

Post by SR Racing »

The rear brake disc setup is NOT a problem. Although it has NO performance advantage. The calipers are any VW/Ghia caliper. (Chinese or otherwise.) We have had NO problems with the Chinese or Brazilian calipers. The bracket is a simple 2 bolt item. The only issue we have seen with these is that if a bolt/nut comes off you spin the caliper on the rotor and destroy the boot and brake line. I am aware of this happening twice. Both times due to a bolt loosening, not a quality issue. We have never seen a rotor break (unlike a German, Mexican or Brazillian drum) By FAR the disc brake setup is safer. (In my opinion it should even be mandated, given the recent drum failures.) Elimination of backing plates is also nice. However, a phased in approach is fine.

All the above is available from many vendors (including us of course). Feel free to browse the FST portion of my web site for an idea on prices with parts explosion drawings: http://sracing.com/Store/FST_Stuff/FST_Stuff.htm Buy from whoever you want, but this will give you an idea of what you need and comparable prices.

I think the proposal did NOT allow for inboard front shocks. That is a good idea at this time. There could be a aero advantage to inboard shocks, and perceived or true it would force others to make the change and it is not as simple as the rest of it. IN FST we have both inboard and outboard shock cars running. I doubt there is much difference at 120mph.

I think we have sold most all of the calipers, rotors, and brackets being used and as far as I know the only people who have ever bought more than the ones needed, were for spares. (Aside from the bracket issue above.) We drill the rotors for any pattern people want and then add Dorman US studs.

The normal brake master cylinders can be used (.685 - 5/8 inch) with a brake bias adjuster. With discs or drums front or rear. The brake fittings are the same.

There are several good papers on installation of all the above at the FST website: http://www.formula-first.org/Technical/ ... ticles.htm
BLS
Posts: 412
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 7:52 pm

Re: August Minutes

Post by BLS »

Although it has NO performance advantage.
Jim, any disadvantage? What is the weight difference? I am unable to imagine why a rotor and caliper with mount weigh the reported 10 pounds (rotating weight, per side) more than a backing plate, wheel cylinder, and drum. OTOH, I'm sure Greg knows what he is talking about. Must be a pretty hefty rotor...
Barry
Old Zink FV,
'87 Citation
SR Racing
Posts: 1209
Joined: June 24th, 2006, 1:58 pm

Re: August Minutes

Post by SR Racing »

BLS wrote:
Jim, any disadvantage? What is the weight difference? I am unable to imagine why a rotor and caliper with mount weigh the reported 10 pounds (rotating weight, per side) more than a backing plate, wheel cylinder, and drum. OTOH, I'm sure Greg knows what he is talking about. Must be a pretty hefty rotor...
In total it is heavier. I will try and get a weight measurement tomorrow if I think of it. I don't think it is 10lbs per side, but it IS more. The rotor and caliper is heavier than the drum, backing plate and slave cylinder. Weight whatever it is, is the ONLY disadvantage. Longevity, no required adjustments, and drum verses rotor safety are all advantages. Considering that you are only using less than 20% rear braking on a dry track, the discs I themselves don't offer any performance advantage. Probably less fade issues, but that is not a problem on FV rear brakes.
Bill_Bonow
Posts: 301
Joined: June 26th, 2006, 12:53 pm

Re: August Minutes

Post by Bill_Bonow »

fvracer27 wrote: I was wondering if these 2 braces could be removed off the BJ beam and replaced with braces with LP beam hole spacing so that there is not a need to modify the chassis on most cars.
Mark,

Why not just drill (2) 1/2" dia holes in the BJ beam brackets to give it a LP mounting pattern. This is a very common way it is done in a conversion. I have photos, but this forum doesn't seem to want them uploaded.

If you want to see what I mean, I'd be glad to email.

General statement: Buy Chinese junk and you get Chinese junk. I've only had trouble with rear rotor splines once, mostly because I didn't tighten them correctly. Rear rotors are not an issue in FST, period.
Bill Bonow
" I love Formula Vees, they're delicious!"
SR Racing
Posts: 1209
Joined: June 24th, 2006, 1:58 pm

Re: August Minutes

Post by SR Racing »

In regards to the Chinese parts issues. I remember 50+ years ago when it was Japan. Within 10 years Japan was far better than the US in machining, refining, metallurgy etc. The same cycle is occurring. Due to US pressure, QC processes etc. they are getting better everyday. There are still a few Chinese things we won't touch. (toothpaste, baby food and some parts :-), but the things we currently sell have a good track record. (and if it is just a racist or political issue, we often have the comparable part in Brazilian or Mexican and sometimes German. :-) )
SR Racing
Posts: 1209
Joined: June 24th, 2006, 1:58 pm

Re: August Minutes

Post by SR Racing »

Bill_Bonow wrote: General statement: Buy Chinese junk and you get Chinese junk. I've only had trouble with rear rotor splines once, mostly because I didn't tighten them correctly. Rear rotors are not an issue in FST, period.
Good point. I should have mentioned that I have sold a few rear rotors due to spline loss. As Bill points out this is normally due to tightening issues OR the cheap Brazilian shims in the rear axle kits. Nothing to do with the Chinese. (Just like it is a problem with the Mexican, Brazilian, Italian or German drums.) :P
Bill_Bonow
Posts: 301
Joined: June 26th, 2006, 12:53 pm

Re: August Minutes

Post by Bill_Bonow »

To clarify, quality is relevant to manufacturing, not the country of origin. I've seen plenty of German rear drums with cracks.
Bill Bonow
" I love Formula Vees, they're delicious!"
BLS
Posts: 412
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 7:52 pm

Re: August Minutes

Post by BLS »

Jim, thanks for the reply. It's (discs) certainly a bit simpler and solves the drum breakage issue. Weight, combined with an increased BJ weight might be an issue. Especially if the weight is mostly rotating, unless it is all in the hub.
Barry
Old Zink FV,
'87 Citation
problemchild
Posts: 902
Joined: June 25th, 2006, 9:34 am

Re: August Minutes

Post by problemchild »

For those that are unaware, the front brake package is VW designed, and originally came on Karmen Ghias. The rear brake package is an aftermarket kit which was not designed by VW. My Chinese reference was to the quality of the kit. I have no idea where it was built. I do know that when you drill/machine it, you do not get typical "metal filings" but piles of granular metal particles. It is my opinion that the rear brakes are the only real flaw in the FST package. Of course, you must realize that I am just offering an opinion as an independant racing professional. I am not a vender or promoter of the class.

I am also opposed to partial conversion. I would just hate to see rear brakes being one of the items approved for partial conversion as it is a step backwards/sideways, having inferior performance but with a label suggesting progress. Expensive rotating ballast! Any potential wheel fitment issues can be solved with the 4-bolt drums.

BTW, "tightening issues" is code for "you have to overtighten them". The accepted FV drum tightening procedures are not enough.
Last edited by problemchild on September 5th, 2013, 8:40 am, edited 2 times in total.
Greg Rice
"Happy 50th Birthday"
BLS
Posts: 412
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 7:52 pm

Re: August Minutes

Post by BLS »

Looking in the GCR, the rear rotors have a min weight of 15 pounds (FST). I have the rear drum weight including lug nuts at approximately 7-8 pounds, so quite a difference.
The calipers are the same as the front, so I guess only the rotor is non VW design.
As long as it is not required (for FV), no problem as far as I'm concerned.
Barry
Old Zink FV,
'87 Citation
FVartist42
Posts: 17
Joined: May 17th, 2013, 11:54 am

Re: August Minutes

Post by FVartist42 »

VW disc brakes or for that matter any OEM disc brake system has a built in disadvantage. The pads must be in constant contact with the rotor, that produces a drag, unlike a drum system. That plus the added weight is not an advantage I would consider. You can lessen the drag with a simple modification, but under the rule you are allowing it would be illegal.
BLS
Posts: 412
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 7:52 pm

Re: August Minutes

Post by BLS »

Actually, the rotor runout will push the pads away from the rotor and there is no drag.
Barry
Old Zink FV,
'87 Citation
tiagosantos
Posts: 391
Joined: June 20th, 2010, 12:10 am

Re: August Minutes

Post by tiagosantos »

problemchild wrote:I do know that when you drill/machine it, you do not get typical "metal filings" but piles of granular metal particles.
That is typical of cast iron parts.. Try feeding faster and don't use coolant, but it'll always make a mess, no matter where the cast iron came from!

I don't think the rear rotors will be a problem. But there's always ICP to make us some indestructible rotors if it comes to that.
SR Racing
Posts: 1209
Joined: June 24th, 2006, 1:58 pm

Re: August Minutes

Post by SR Racing »

FVartist42 wrote:VW disc brakes or for that matter any OEM disc brake system has a built in disadvantage. The pads must be in constant contact with the rotor, that produces a drag, unlike a drum system. That plus the added weight is not an advantage I would consider. You can lessen the drag with a simple modification, but under the rule you are allowing it would be illegal.
Yep, What Barry said.. Even .0001 run-out moves the pads back. There is no drag. Even when you apply the brakes when jacked up and spin the rotor no drag is felt. (Actually much better than the typical drum.) We use no residual valves.

BTW, Rear rotor, caliper and mounting bracket come in at about 25lbs. I don't know exactly what a rear drum, backing plate slave and spring hardware weigh. My guess would be in the 20 lb area. So there is a penalty of at least 5 lbs of unspring weight.

In FST we felt the safety, simplicity and reliability was enough to make it the rule. For FV it would be a slight step backwards (in performance.)
Post Reply