November Minutes

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

November Minutes

Post by Dietmar »

The FV Ad Hoc Committee met on November 4.
Members attending: Stevan Davis, Stephen Saslow, John Petillo, Alex Bertolucci, Bruce Livermore, Philip Holcomb, Dietmar Bauerle
Guest: Bill Johnson

During the October meeting a Committee member raised a concern/question regarding weights and measures used in the FV class, specifically when these measures are averaged vs. when they are a high or low limit on individual measurements. The November meeting began with this topic. The discussion mainly focused on parts (such as old spares) that do not meet the current individual minimum weight limit, but could be legal if some weights were averaged for all similar parts used in the engine. After much discussion, it was the consensus of the Committee that the rules regarding minimum weights and dimensions are adequate as written.

While reviewing measurement specs. in the GCR, the Committee did find some areas of the GCR that might need some modifications as they use terminology ('spring caps' vs 'retainers') that might be confusing to competitors. The Committee will look into these in the future.

A question arose regarding the use of alternate springs, namely springs described as Bee-Hive springs. The Committee agreed that springs are free provided that they meet the criteria specified in the GCR (steel and single springs). However, it appears that some competitors are modifying the valve guide boss in order to fit some styles of bee hive springs, whereas other competitors have found a source of these springs that do not require the modification of the guide boss. Although some of the Committee members felt that the section which refers to “previously machined surfaces” also applies to the guide boss, other members disagreed, stating that in their opinion, this “previously machined surface“ verbiage only applies to Part D. section 6 and does NOT apply to any other part of the engine or chassis unless specified elsewhere in the rules. With this interpretation, since there is no specific provision for modification of the guide bosses, section 9.1.1.B paragraph 2 is in force.

Since the Committee is divided on the legality of modification of the valve guide boss, the issue could bring up a need to change or clarify the rules. Input would be appreciated from the membership directed to any committee member on whether you feel modifying the guide boss should be allowed or not. Properly sized beehive springs likely do provide both engine performance and valve train longevity benefits due to reduced valve train mass and reduced valve spring surge. It should be noted that to use beehive springs, new, smaller valve retainers or "caps" are also required and, where required to fit the chosen springs, there is likely to be an added cost for modifying the head to accept the springs. It is only the modification of the heads that is in question.

The Committee has been asked by the CRB to investigate the use of a spec tire in FV. We have been provided the survey used for the FF group and will be making modifications to better meet the needs of the FV class. It is the intent of the Committee to recommend that any survey be limited to active FV drivers and not the general membership.

No other items were presented or discussed.
Next meeting scheduled for Dec 2
Post Reply