July minutes

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

July minutes

Post by Dietmar »

The Fv Ad Hoc Committee met earlier in the month, and as sometimes happens, the Committee could not agree on the exact wording of the minutes in order to provide the membership with all the details of what transpired in our meeting. So it was this time, and as a result, we have not until now published the minutes. In the meantime, it seems the CRB could not wait for the Committee to submit our revised recommendation and went ahead and published their own in Fastrack. We would like to state that it is still the opinion of the Ad Hoc Committee as published below, that any changes to the FV rules to allow disc brakes in any form be postponed for at least a year to allow further study of the various options that would be available to the membership. We also noticed that in their haste, the CRB forgot to include any mention of WHEELS in their recommendation to the Board, so obviously some further discussion and decision making will have to take place IF disc brakes are approved.

The minutes from the last meeting are included below.

The FV Ad Hoc Committee met on July 2

Members attending: Steve Oseth, John Petillo, Barrett Hendricks, Alex Bertolucci, Dietmar Bauerle

Guest: Fred Clark

The discussion at the meeting focused on the disc brake issue, specifically with regard to the request by the CRB for other options and with regard to the results from the poll conducted through the FV Registry. The poll was conducted specifically to help us better understand the community’s viewpoint of the issue and to help us formulate what other options might be palatable to the community, with the intent to send such options to the CRB.

The CRB made this request for other options because of the different responses they received when they asked for member input on disc brakes in the Fall 2013, and then when they asked for member input on the Committee's ball joint beam disc brake proposal.

With regard to the poll, the Committee received a total of 38 responses by July 2nd. The Committee admits that the short timeline might have hampered some from responding, but we had hoped for a higher number of responses.

Based on the responses from the poll and what the Committee understands about the fall and spring voting/letters to the CRB, the Committee could not come to a conclusive determination of whether or not the membership is in favor or opposed to disc brakes, and in what configuration. With this in mind, the Committee decided that we could not provide the CRB with a viable alternative recommendation before their next meeting. The Committee decided it still needs more time to develop a quality disc brake option that could be right for the class and acceptable to the FV community, and we will convey this decision to the CRB.

No other items were presented or discussed

Next meeting scheduled for August 6th.
Posts: 301
Joined: June 26th, 2006, 12:53 pm

Re: July minutes

Post by Bill_Bonow »

As a note of reference, the CRB also forgot to put ANY technical specifications on the disc brake components to be used with the ball joint beam. From my reading, the are 100% free. A major problem if left to pass into the rules.

Add 9.1.1.C.3.A.12: 12. VW Type 1 ball joint front suspensions may be used under the following conditions.
a. Disc brakes shall be used on the front axle.
b. Lugs may be welded, brackets attached by welding or otherwise, and holes drilled in the ball joint H-beam to permit
attachment of the beam to the chassis, and other components wholly or partially to the beam.
c. Front spring(s) are unrestricted except that the front suspension lifting spring(s) must be a continuous unit measuring
37.63” (+ or - .25”) in length, and be completely housed inside the torsion spring tube(s). The trailing arm socket may
be modified to allow a spring or anti-sway bar to be removed from the car without removing the trailing arm. At least
1 spring pack shall be retained as the primary spring media for the front suspension. Replacement of the torsion bar
rubbers with spacers of another material is permitted. Coil springs are not permitted.
d. Removal or substitution of the shock towers above the upper H-beam tube is permitted.
e. The use of any direct acting tube type shock absorber(s) is allowed. The upper mounting point shall be to the
H-beam at or above the top of the upper H-beam tube and a maximum of 1” inboard of the center of the OEM shock
tower. The lower mounting point shall act through the standard mounting point on the trailing arm. Spring shock and
linkage activated shocks are prohibited. Bump rubbers with a maximum length of 2 ½” may be used to protect the
shock(s)/chassis from bottoming. Use of related bump rubber packing washers/solid spacers is free.
f. The use of any anti-sway bars, internal or external, is permitted including external or internal mounting hardware, and
trailing arm locating spacers. The anti-sway bar fitted as part of the standard suspension may be removed. Front sway
bars may not be cockpit adjustable. Front suspension Z-bars are not permitted.
g. Installation of 1 ride height adjuster per beam tube, constructed for use with standard VW spring packs allowing
rotation of the spring back, is allowed. No cockpit adjustment of ride height is permitted.
h. Removal of the brake backing plates is permitted.
1. Camber/caster eccentric adjusting nut may be replaced with an aftermarket nut of different design. Caster,
camber and toe settings are free.
2. Any ferrous wheel bearings that fit in the VW type 1 spindles and disc brake hubs without modification are
k. The steering column may be altered or replaced. Steering wheel is free and may be detachable. Steering mechanism
shall be a standard Type 1 VW steering gearbox or direct replacement. The pitman arm is free. Tie rods must attach
to the spindle using the existing steering arm, a modified steering arm, or a suitable new or modified bracket welded to
the spindle. Ball joints in the tie rods may be replaced with rod ends.

If disc brakes as an option are wanted or not, the current proposal needs to be completely reworked. The FVAHC is spot on, time (1 year sounds good) needs to be spent on a proposal.
Bill Bonow
" I love Formula Vees, they're delicious!"
Posts: 755
Joined: August 26th, 2006, 2:54 pm

Re: July minutes

Post by jpetillo »

Agreed. This needs to be reworked before it should be considered.
Posts: 1014
Joined: December 1st, 2006, 8:01 pm

Re: July minutes

Post by hardingfv32-1 »

The FVAHC process is dysfunctional. Giving them more time will not change anything. The CRB made a simple request and the FVAHC was unable to formulate a response. There was plenty of time. They need to be able to function without a taking pole.

Proceed with the current CRB proposal and get the change on the books. It can be easily be amended in the future.

Post Reply