August Minutes

SR Racing
Posts: 1209
Joined: June 24th, 2006, 1:58 pm

Re: August Minutes

Post by SR Racing »

problemchild wrote: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.
The rear calipers are exactly the same as the fronts. There are at least 3 types of mounting brackets being made. (Possibly all Chinese). 1 is cast, and 2 are mild steel with nuts welded on, but additional nuts can be added. About $15 bucks per side. We sell the steel ones and have had no issues. No matter where you buy from I would get the steel ones.
I do know that when you drill/machine it, you do not get typical "metal filings" but piles of granular metal particles.
Yes. That is cast metal. Same with drums..
hardingfv32-1
Posts: 1014
Joined: December 1st, 2006, 8:01 pm

Re: August Minutes

Post by hardingfv32-1 »

Wheel widths/offset and suspension tracks are in the same range as the current FV setup?

Is the center spacing of the torsion bar tubes of the BJ beam the same as the LP beam? Does the BJ beam use needle bearings?

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

Re: August Minutes

Post by problemchild »

tiagosantos wrote:
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.
All that may be true. I have worked in many machine shops, the custom machine building industry, and worked on many cast iron components in my racing career. The quality of those rotors was unlike anything I have seen. I had more troubles with those rotors in 3 weekends than in 3 years with freebie 4-bolt VW drums and certainly felt less safe. The only good thing I can think of ...... when the splines strip, and the nut loosens up and falls off, the caliper keeps the rotor and wheel from falling off. IMO, the 4 bolt drums are indestructable.

As the FST guys keep saying, the FST package is a package that is complete and accomplishes specific goals. The individual portions of the package are not necassarily better or faster.
Rear brakes are one example.
Tires are another. Much misunderstanding about this, but FST tires are not stickier or faster. They do, however, provide consistant performance over an extended period. Much better, not faster!
Steering racks are another. When used with the VW trailing arm front suspension, geometry is a nightmare. There is no performance advantage. Many would prefer racks, despite the challenges.
Wheelbase. Longer increases accessibility, safety, ease of packaging, but IMO, not faster.

I would encourage people that love FV to race their FVs. Those that love FV but want change, convert to FST. Do it ASAP. Don't wait for all this partial conversion stuff to play out. Your FV parts can keep FV more viable for others. The Formula Vee group needs to get and keep as many FVs and FSTs on track as possible now. FST should be, and appear to be, as flexible as possible to allow partial conversions to run in their class through transition periods.
Last edited by problemchild on September 5th, 2013, 4:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Greg Rice
"Happy 50th Birthday"
fvracer27
Posts: 247
Joined: October 25th, 2009, 8:40 pm

Re: August Minutes

Post by fvracer27 »

hardingfv32-1 wrote:Wheel widths/offset and suspension tracks are in the same range as the current FV setup?

Is the center spacing of the torsion bar tubes of the BJ beam the same as the LP beam? Does the BJ beam use needle bearings?

Brian
Not sure about the widths/offsets
Beam spacing is different and can cause some extra mods to some cars to bolt them up along with body mods.
I believe Jim said the beams are needle bearing beams and can be purchased new.
Mark Filip
NER #27
Womer EV-3
fvracer27
Posts: 247
Joined: October 25th, 2009, 8:40 pm

Re: August Minutes

Post by fvracer27 »

Bill_Bonow wrote:
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.

I would like to see a photo Bill, Can anyone else post a photo of it? I whould think drilling extra holes would compromise the strenght of the mounting.
Mark Filip
NER #27
Womer EV-3
problemchild
Posts: 902
Joined: June 25th, 2006, 9:34 am

Re: August Minutes

Post by problemchild »

The inner needle bearing assembly is the same as on a LP beam. The outer needle bearing assembly is larger.

The BJ beam tubes are spaced further apart than the LP beam tubes and the mounting holes are proportionally further apart. You can drill a 3rd hole in the beam mounts to locate the BJ beam on the chassis mounts where the KP beam was mounted. It would be your choice whether to move the beam up or down , but one of the beam tubes would be exactly where the tube was when the LP beam was there.
Same car as FV and FST. Upper tube and upper mounting hole in common location.
Image
Image
Greg Rice
"Happy 50th Birthday"
Bill_Bonow
Posts: 301
Joined: June 26th, 2006, 12:53 pm

Re: August Minutes

Post by Bill_Bonow »

problemchild wrote:The inner needle bearing assembly is the same as on a LP beam. The outer needle bearing assembly is larger.
Almost... The inners are the same as the LP beam, but they are composite bushings (not needle bearings) and the BJ upper outer needle bearing is the same needle bearing as the LP beam. Only the BJ lower outer needle bearing is a larger diameter.
Bill Bonow
" I love Formula Vees, they're delicious!"
problemchild
Posts: 902
Joined: June 25th, 2006, 9:34 am

Re: August Minutes

Post by problemchild »

Mine had needle bearings on the inner.
Greg Rice
"Happy 50th Birthday"
cendiv37
Posts: 386
Joined: June 25th, 2006, 7:29 pm

Re: August Minutes

Post by cendiv37 »

Just to clear up one point that has been discussed.
The chassis bolt spacing on the beams is the same side to side for LP and BJ beams, about 11.5".
Only the vertical spacing is different.

Greg's comments implied this, but measurements of a couple beams of each type indicate that this dimension is essentially the same.

Bruce
Bruce
cendiv37
brian
Posts: 1348
Joined: June 26th, 2006, 12:31 pm

Re: August Minutes

Post by brian »

If the CRB decides to pursue this proposal, it must be put out for membership input for 30 days. This is required for all rule changes. Given the 2014 rule change season closes on October 1, it's not likely we'll see this change before 2015.

The October date has been in effect for many years to provide adequate time for competitors to make changes during the winter. Remember some folks start racing in January.

I double checked this morning, in case someone needs one, new link pin h-beams are still available on-line. http://vwparts.aircooled.net/VW-Engine-Parts-s/48.htm
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.
BLS
Posts: 412
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 7:52 pm

Re: August Minutes

Post by BLS »

Brian's link corrected to the link pin beam:

http://vwparts.aircooled.net/Front-Axle ... 1-021a.htm
Barry
Old Zink FV,
'87 Citation
Bill_Bonow
Posts: 301
Joined: June 26th, 2006, 12:53 pm

Re: August Minutes

Post by Bill_Bonow »

brian wrote:If the CRB decides to pursue this proposal, it must be put out for membership input for 30 days. This is required for all rule changes. Given the 2014 rule change season closes on October 1, it's not likely we'll see this change before 2015.The October date has been in effect for many years to provide adequate time for competitors to make changes during the winter. Remember some folks start racing in January.
I double checked this morning, in case someone needs one, new link pin h-beams are still available on-line. http://vwparts.aircooled.net/VW-Engine-Parts-s/48.htm
Brian,

Unless I am way off base, this is an idea for a proposal for an option, not a mandatory change. No worries, still plenty of time for it to be shot down.
Bill Bonow
" I love Formula Vees, they're delicious!"
brian
Posts: 1348
Joined: June 26th, 2006, 12:31 pm

Re: August Minutes

Post by brian »

Not making something mandatory doesn't matter. It's a rule change and there's a long standing process that we must follow.
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.
problemchild
Posts: 902
Joined: June 25th, 2006, 9:34 am

Re: August Minutes

Post by problemchild »

brian wrote:Not making something mandatory doesn't matter. It's a rule change and there's a long standing process that we must follow.
You make that sound like a good thing, rather than the reason SCCA is an outdated model, unresponsive to its members needs, and failing miserably as a 21st century organization.
Greg Rice
"Happy 50th Birthday"
brian
Posts: 1348
Joined: June 26th, 2006, 12:31 pm

Re: August Minutes

Post by brian »

Greg, would you prefer that we not go out to the members for input? How about rule changes just before the Runoffs? The process have evolved over the years and has never been better. The online letter tracking system built by the staff is just one example. Is it perfect? Of course not, don't forget it's run by volunteers who dedicate a lot more time than it takes to bang a keyboard.
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.
tiagosantos
Posts: 391
Joined: June 20th, 2010, 12:10 am

Re: August Minutes

Post by tiagosantos »

I think what Greg is trying to say is that there should be some flexibility in this kind of stuff, not a set of hard rules for every measure. If something is introduced as an alternative, that doesn't require anyone to change anything and, by design, isn't even a competitive advantage, it shouldn't be necessary to wait a full year for it to be implemented.

It should most definitely go out for member input (since that's the nature of the SCCA). And maybe there should be a long blackout period before the runoffs where no changes or addendums could be made. But there should be a way to "fast track" stuff into existance. If 2015 it is, so be it, though!

I understand that none of this will ever be as simple as it should. The SCCA is pretty darn big, lots of people involved, with very different ideas of how things should be done. It'll never please everyone, but I'm sure the current way of doing things has evolved to satisfy (or appease..) the majority. Maybe that's a big selling point for the off shoots (like the various pro series) - a smaller market means you have less of a chance to piss someone off.
SR Racing
Posts: 1209
Joined: June 24th, 2006, 1:58 pm

Re: August Minutes

Post by SR Racing »

Sorta agree with Greg on this one. (aside from this particular change) Getting additional member input is nice but they (board) don't count the member input as votes. They do what they want to do (assumedly what is good for the class/scca). Member input has no objective meaning. Given that, changes could be made immediately (obviously with attention to concurrent events etc.)
brian
Posts: 1348
Joined: June 26th, 2006, 12:31 pm

Re: August Minutes

Post by brian »

Flexibility is just the thing to generate cries of favoritism and black helicopters. We have got to stick to the process and give this proposal a full and fair consideration. As for being an alternative, that's not relative to the process. It's a rule change. I have a suspicion that there are those who would argue that this change will be required to remain competitive so it will effect the entire class.

Letters do not count as votes simply because they can't represent all voices and most folks don't bother to write a letter. But they are heavily considered by the advisory committees and the CRB.

Maybe BIll or JIm could estimate the total cost of conversion. In all this posting, no one has mentioned cost. I don't know what everything costs, but by the time you buy the brake components, a complete BJ front end and enough wheels to support your program, it can't be cheap. I think folks deserve to know that number. Yea, I know one could sell the old stuff to a vintage guy but most current vee owners aren't likely to buy drum stuff if it would be viewed as obsolete.
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.
sharplikestump
Posts: 183
Joined: January 12th, 2009, 2:28 pm

Re: August Minutes

Post by sharplikestump »

Greg,
This being the first time that I have seen a photo of the steering rack setup, and after reading your comment in a previous post pertaining to it's use, it appears to me that the bump steer (changes in toe initiated by vertical chassis movement) would be much increased due to the considerably shorter tie-rods. It just seems that this would result in a rather massive amount of tire scrub, or am I missing something?
Also, I am hoping you will share with us the number of hours you have in the conversion, and the feasibility of the average Vee driver performing the same conversion. For that matter, I would appreciate similar input from one and all, including total cost to have it done professionally, with or w/o the disc brake conversion.
Lastly (for now), It does seem that ball joint life and replacement would be far simpler than rebuilding a LP front end. Correct?
Bottom line...while I may not be sold on the entire conversion, there are several aspects, such as larger dia. spindles, ease of making camber changes, availability, and maintenance that seem pretty obvious and appealing.
Thanks,
Mike P.
problemchild wrote:The inner needle bearing assembly is the same as on a LP beam. The outer needle bearing assembly is larger.

The BJ beam tubes are spaced further apart than the LP beam tubes and the mounting holes are proportionally further apart. You can drill a 3rd hole in the beam mounts to locate the BJ beam on the chassis mounts where the KP beam was mounted. It would be your choice whether to move the beam up or down , but one of the beam tubes would be exactly where the tube was when the LP beam was there.
Same car as FV and FST. Upper tube and upper mounting hole in common location.
Image
Image
problemchild
Posts: 902
Joined: June 25th, 2006, 9:34 am

Re: August Minutes

Post by problemchild »

I'm not in favor of this change and would write a letter against it. Those that want this change, already have the FST option.

I'm just so tired of Brian's attitude about the class in general. He has absolutely no sense of urgency to do anything and is proud of that stance and the dysfunctional SCCA process. As a FV racer, at the highest level of the SCCA political system, his "FV is healthy. Its just the economy. Blah. Blah. Blah" position is working against any positive change that may be presented. If we ever found that magic solution, Brian and his SCCA cronies would make sure it took 5 years to implement.
Last edited by problemchild on September 10th, 2013, 11:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
Greg Rice
"Happy 50th Birthday"
problemchild
Posts: 902
Joined: June 25th, 2006, 9:34 am

Re: August Minutes

Post by problemchild »

problemchild wrote:
All that may be true. I have worked in many machine shops, the custom machine building industry, and worked on many cast iron components in my racing career. The quality of those rotors was unlike anything I have seen. I had more troubles with those rotors in 3 weekends than in 3 years with freebie 4-bolt VW drums and certainly felt less safe. The only good thing I can think of ...... when the splines strip, and the nut loosens up and falls off, the caliper keeps the rotor and wheel from falling off. IMO, the 4 bolt drums are indestructable.

As the FST guys keep saying, the FST package is a package that is complete and accomplishes specific goals. The individual portions of the package are not necassarily better or faster.
Rear brakes are one example.
Tires are another. Much misunderstanding about this, but FST tires are not stickier or faster. They do, however, provide consistant performance over an extended period. Much better, not faster!
Steering racks are another. When used with the VW trailing arm front suspension, geometry is a nightmare. There is no performance advantage. Many would prefer racks, despite the challenges.
Wheelbase. Longer increases accessibility, safety, ease of packaging, but IMO, not faster.

I would encourage people that love FV to race their FVs. Those that love FV but want change, convert to FST. Do it ASAP. Don't wait for all this partial conversion stuff to play out. Your FV parts can keep FV more viable for others. The Formula Vee group needs to get and keep as many FVs and FSTs on track as possible now. FST should be, and appear to be, as flexible as possible to allow partial conversions to run in their class through transition periods.
In response to some of Mike's questions. I did the conversions in reverse, from FF, to FST, to FV. Working quickly is not a priority.
As Bill says, in other threads, installing the beam assembly is a 10 minute job. Drill 2 new 1/2" holes in the BJ beam and bolt it on. Modifying bodywork and clearancing other possible components is what may or may not take the time. Like the LP beam assembly, "stiction" is critical. New ball-joints are too tight so you need to loosen them up or find good used ones, etc. People should ask "How much for a complete BJ racing beam assembly with shock hardware, extra-range camber-adjusters, etc?" before getting too excited. It is a whole lot more than the prices we see in "Hot VWs".

FST is a complete package. People that want change should convert.
In typical "conflict of interest" FV/FST fashion, this partial conversion proposal discussion is getting muddied because people who would be politically and conceptually opposed to this proposal, are now seeing the potential for selling parts for it, based on their FST experience and capability to supply parts. Right or wrong, my opinions are totally independant of any commercial interests.
Last edited by problemchild on September 10th, 2013, 11:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
Greg Rice
"Happy 50th Birthday"
craigs
Posts: 82
Joined: May 29th, 2007, 5:46 pm

Re: August Minutes

Post by craigs »

problemchild wrote:I'm not in favor of this change and would write a letter against it. Those that want this change, already have the FST option.
And I thought we would never agree on anything! I am also opposed to this change as it is written and will be sure to write in when it goes out for comment.
problemchild
Posts: 902
Joined: June 25th, 2006, 9:34 am

Re: August Minutes

Post by problemchild »

Still disappointed to see all this wasted energy that could be put into instituting a great control tire program that 2/3rds of the FV community wants. :cry: :cry: :cry:
Greg Rice
"Happy 50th Birthday"
Bill_Bonow
Posts: 301
Joined: June 26th, 2006, 12:53 pm

Re: August Minutes

Post by Bill_Bonow »

problemchild wrote:.
As Bill says, in other threads, installing the beam assembly is a 10 minute job.
Really, did I? I must have been really high on crack as I just can't remember ever quoting the install of a beam assembly at 10 minutes or any minutes for that fact. I really need to lay off the pipe.
Bill Bonow
" I love Formula Vees, they're delicious!"
problemchild
Posts: 902
Joined: June 25th, 2006, 9:34 am

Re: August Minutes

Post by problemchild »

Perhaps I was exaggerating but ..... drill 2 holes and tighten up 4 bolts. Could be a 10 min job. I was agreeing that bolting on the beam was not the time-consuming part of the job. It was modifying the bodywork and pieces around the beam ..... which may take several hours, several days, or several months .... depending on the car, the person, and the GE Factor.
Greg Rice
"Happy 50th Birthday"
Post Reply