February Minutes

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

February Minutes

Post by Dietmar »

The FV Ad Hoc Committee met February 4

Members attending: Steve Oseth, Bruce Livermore, Alex Bertolucci, Phillip Holcomb, Dietmar Bauerle
Guest: Fred Clark

Very brief meeting as all topics discussed in the past few meetings are in “limbo”, so to speak.

The California company referenced in a prior meeting which was retooling has informed a Committee member that they are ready to start on a FV piston. They believe they can take a current blank and make it work for FV. We are looking at possibly getting a sample in the next 45 days. Initial estimates are in the 25- 40 dollar range (each) for a cast piston.
The AA piston from China is reportedly in the final stages and we should see a sample of that piston in the next month. Both of the above would have 2.5 mm ring grooves, thus eliminating the need for alternate piston rings.

Fred Clark has obtained a new set of AA cylinders that match the specs that we presented to AA and he seems very impressed with their fitment- especially the ones that fit the universal case without the need for spacers or “o” rings.


The Fairings recommendation went through the FSRC and is on the way to the CRB.


For those who wish to plan ahead- the 55th Birthday Party is already being discussed. Word is that VIR and the N. Carolina Region is very interested in hosting this event and planning has begun. More info will be published as provided.

No other items were presented or discussed.

Next meeting scheduled for March 4
hardingfv32-1
Posts: 1014
Joined: December 1st, 2006, 8:01 pm

Re: February Minutes

Post by hardingfv32-1 »

What is the wording of the Fairings recommendation?

Brian
sharplikestump
Posts: 183
Joined: January 12th, 2009, 2:28 pm

Re: February Minutes

Post by sharplikestump »

Dietmar,
First, thank you for your work on the piston issue.
When I spoke with AA, I was informed that resizing the groove to 2.5mm was a major change in the process. Doesn't seem that big of a deal, but, that is what I was told. There was also the issue of not being able to obtain the 2.5mm rings. Please don't get me wrong....I am all for this. In fact, I sent Fred one of the early AA pistons, which actually had the wider grooves. It is just different from what I was told. I was asked to furnish a drawing of what I hoped for, and sent one based on what I was told. We are out of state at this time, but I think I recall requesting that the top 2mm. groove be moved up .040 or .060 inch.
My questions are: would both compression ring grooves be opened up or just the top groove? Secondly, were you told that they now have a source of the wider rings?
Lastly, what is the opinion of the committee on having the top 2.0mm ring groove moved up to the maximum height that the rules would allow, and what is that dimension?
Thanks again,
Mike P.
SR Racing
Posts: 1209
Joined: June 24th, 2006, 1:58 pm

Re: February Minutes

Post by SR Racing »

Lastly, what is the opinion of the committee on having the top 2.0mm ring groove moved up to the maximum height that the rules would allow, and what is that dimension?
Hi Mike,
I was not aware of any upper ring height in the rules? (other, than the piston must be dimensionally stock) We have taken anywhere from .030 to .050 off the tops to in effect raise the effective ring height (and decrease weight)

Also has weight been in these discussions with the manufactures? (with wrist pins?)
Dietmar
Site Admin
Posts: 631
Joined: June 24th, 2006, 11:56 am

Re: February Minutes

Post by Dietmar »

Mike:

Several years ago I acquired a set of AA pistons with the 2.5mm groove- but they(AA) had installed 2mm rings. I sent them back and gave up on the AA product. Cylinders were also out of round and they had no support on the shoulder.

Since then I have a customer in Australia who has direct contact to the AA factory in China. He submitted our drawings for the cylinders and they (AA) were able to come up with a cylinder that fits the universal case. Since the Aussies are in the same situation or worse when it comes to sourcing parts for the `1200 as we are, my contact asked if we would be interested in 1200 pistons with 2.5mm grooves. He presented AA with a stock 1200 piston and asked if they could reproduce this item. To the best of my knowledge, this is the piston that I should see in a couple of weeks. There has been no mention of difficulty sourcing 2.5mm rings. Who knows- I might just get the same piston that I had years ago with a 2.5mm groove and a 2mm ring. Only time will tell.

In the mean time, as stated in the minutes, a Ca. company has agreed to try to come up with replacement at a reasonable cost. Again, only time will tell.

Dietmar
sharplikestump
Posts: 183
Joined: January 12th, 2009, 2:28 pm

Re: February Minutes

Post by sharplikestump »

Dietmar,
I had to laugh when you told me of the set you received. I have to wonder how many other such sets were sent out like that, and if anyone thought "well, they must know best", and then installed them like that.
The word I get is that the late style cylinders (which, as previously stated, I think are the best I have ever seen) were originally built for Europe. When I asked how solid the supply was a couple of weeks ago, I was told it was tight "because now Australia was on to them", so I have to think we are talking about the same unit. It really doesn't matter to me what width the groove is, as I have come up with shimming packages for both, but on the whole, I have to think that if we can get them with the 2.5mm grooves it will be better for everyone.
Again, because the piston with the 2.0mm grooves has the ring area compressed (narrower ring lands under the two top narrower grooves), it results in the top ring being quite a bit lower than the top ring on the piston with the wider grooves, so my question is: Is there any problem if I can get AA to move those narrow grooves up as high as they are on the piston with the 2.5mm grooves? Neither I nor AA in CA know that this is possible. I would just like to have a committee opinion prior to pursuing it.
OK........Now ANOTHER question pops into my head (and since I am on a 3 week vacation in TX, this probably verifies that I need to get a life), BUT.....if for any reason, I chose to widen that top groove to 2.5mm, AND it did NOT violate the measurement limitation on top ring groove height, does anyone see a problem?
Thanks again,
Mike P.
sharplikestump
Posts: 183
Joined: January 12th, 2009, 2:28 pm

Re: February Minutes

Post by sharplikestump »

SR Racing wrote:
Lastly, what is the opinion of the committee on having the top 2.0mm ring groove moved up to the maximum height that the rules would allow, and what is that dimension?
Hi Mike,
I was not aware of any upper ring height in the rules? (other, than the piston must be dimensionally stock) We have taken anywhere from .030 to .050 off the tops to in effect raise the effective ring height (and decrease weight)

Also has weight been in these discussions with the manufactures? (with wrist pins?)

Jim, It does not apply to decking, but as I recall, a max. dim. from pin centerline to the roof of the top groove. I am out of the shop, but someone can certainly provide that dimension.
cendiv37
Posts: 386
Joined: June 25th, 2006, 7:29 pm

Re: February Minutes

Post by cendiv37 »

As requested, here is the wording proposed by the committee regarding rear locating arm bodywork/fairings:

EXISTING:

9.1.1.9.O.
The rear locating arm(s), coil spring(s), and shock absorber(s) shall
not be faired in and shall be visible from the side without removal
or manipulation of any part or panel.

9.1.1.9.Q.
Bodywork shall be defined as all panels external to the chassis/
frame and licked directly by the air stream. This includes the floor
pan. All bodywork shall be rigidly attached to the chassis and shall
not move relative to the chassis while the car is in operation. For
the purposes of this definition, the rigid portion of the front beam
is considered part of the chassis/frame.

PROPOSED:

9.1.1.9.O.
The space between the rear locating arm and axle tube up to the inner flange of the outer casting may be enclosed in bodywork for the purpose of streamlining. The enclosing bodywork may not extend above or below the triangular space nor beyond the axle tube or locating arm away from the triangular space so enclosed except that the panels may be wrapped tightly around the locating arm or axle tube as a method of location or attachment. The panels shall be securely attached. Brackets and fasteners used for attachment shall serve no aerodynamic purpose.


9.1.1.9.Q.
Bodywork shall be defined as all panels external to the chassis/frame and licked directly by the air stream. This includes the floor pan. Except where specifically allowed in the FV rules, all bodywork shall be rigidly attached to the chassis and shall not move relative to the chassis while the car is in operation. For the purposes of this definition, the rigid portion of the front beam is considered part of the chassis/frame.
Bruce
cendiv37
Post Reply