December Minutes

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

December Minutes

Post by Dietmar »

The FV Ad Hoc Committee met December 2, 2015
Member attending: Barret Hendricks, Alex Bertolucci, Stephen Saslow, Dietmar Bauerle
Guests: Fred Clark, Bill Johnson


A recent CRB rule interpretation was published in the December Fastrack. A member asked that elephant feet adjusters be allowed as alternative valve adjusters. The CRB posted their decision based on the section of the FV rules which state that FASTENERS are free. Obviously, a valve adjuster is NOT a FASTENER and the Ad Hoc Committee takes exception not only to this error in the interpretation of the rules but also the fact that the CRB would publish this statement without any input from the membership or the Ad Hoc Committee.

With only 4 members in attendance, no action was taken, however it might be a good idea not to rush out and buy alternate “adjusters” as this issue will be addressed at our next meeting.

Spec Tires: We were informed that a survey which was in part constructed and approved by the Committee was ready to be sent to active FV drivers. The Committee has not seen the final draft of the survey and although we have been told that it will be going out soon, we do not have a firm date nor do we know how long the survey will last. Drivers who do receive an e-mail from SCCA are encouraged to respond as soon as possible.

The use of beehive springs and the required modification of the valve guide boss was again brought up, but without any membership input and too few Committee members in attendance, this issue will be discussed at our next meeting. We had hoped to hear from the membership on this matter.

No other items were presented or discussed
Next meeting scheduled for January 6
hardingfv32
Posts: 104
Joined: June 9th, 2015, 8:04 pm

Re: December Minutes

Post by hardingfv32 »

Dietmar wrote:Obviously, a valve adjuster is NOT a FASTENER
This statement is a clear indication of the arrogance that some of the Committees members display when discussing FV topics.

I would say that the CRB and its SR/F Committee have much more technical expertise than the FV Committee. Their opinion would hold much more strength than the FV Committee's. Granted the status of the adjusters has been static for many decades... but that does not mean it was the correct interpretation. This CRB is not biased by FV history and represents a fresh view on the subject.

The FV Committee should consider the benefits of this change. The swivel seat system eliminates valve tip and adjuster wear. I would claim that valve adjustment could become a once a year maintenance item. Valve guide wear would be reduced because of less side force generated during the valve actuation.

Current standard adjusters are not heat treated properly. They wear and pit very rapidly. If you want an adjuster that lasts you must heat treat them.

The cost of this improvement? $24-30

So is this another classic case of FV tradition trumping practicality??

Brian
cendiv37
Posts: 386
Joined: June 25th, 2006, 7:29 pm

Re: December Minutes

Post by cendiv37 »

Brian,

Your ignorance of the actual wording of the GCR is comical for someone who is constantly trying to torture it to your advantage.

From the May, 2015 GCR, Technical Appendix, page 164:

"> Fasteners – Any mechanism which serves no other purposes than to
cause a component to maintain a fixed position (e.g. bolt, nut, screw,
etc.).

From the Dec. 2015 Fastrack:

FV
1. #17575 (Guy Bellingham) Valve Adjuster Screws
Thank you for your letter. Alternative adjuster screws, like a ball socket type, offer no performance advantage. They are easier
to use and, therefore in this application, considered a fastener covered under sub section 10, Non Standard Parts.

(Sub section 10 of the FV rules (Non-Standard Parts) includes as Item A: "Fasteners (nuts, bolts, screws, etc.")

The powers that be in SCCA claiming that a valve adjusting screw meets the GCR definition of a fastener IS wrong. Pointing this error out is not arrogant, it is necessary.

Now if someone wants to write a letter to the CRB asking for a rules change to allow swivel foot adjusters in FV I have NO problem. I might even support it as a improvement that would be good for the class. But to try to slide them through as a "fastener" is just more CRAP rules creep. This CRAP has been damaging the class for too many years.

The problem is that this is not the first time. It is a pattern. SCCA needs to enforce its own rules or they might as well just burn the GCR.

Bruce
Bruce
cendiv37
hardingfv32
Posts: 104
Joined: June 9th, 2015, 8:04 pm

Re: December Minutes

Post by hardingfv32 »

I have no interest in the actual wording. I am only interested in how the CRB interprets said wording.

The CRB is basing their opinion on the same FV rule that everyone else is. How can it be assumed that the CRB/SR&F Committee's opinion is wrong and your opinion is right?

On the point of me making 'tortured' interpretations.... Do you consider the swivel foot adjuster opinion to be 'tortured'? What is the CRB's motivation for such a 'tortured' opinion? Is this not a clear example of the fact that not all interpretations 'that are way off the reservation' should be called tortured? Franky.. there are not many possible changes to the FV rules that the FV Committee would not call 'tortured' in my opinion.

Brian
FV80
Site Admin
Posts: 1168
Joined: June 27th, 2006, 9:07 am

Re: December Minutes

Post by FV80 »

I believe that "like a ball socket type" is NOT meant to allow the swivel foot adjusters .. just an alternate screw that has a 'ball socket' (allen type) instead of a simple screw driver slot to adjust it. It would be nice to know the exact wording of Guy's question to the CRB.
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.
GrapeFarmerAl
Posts: 21
Joined: November 12th, 2006, 6:05 pm

Re: December Minutes

Post by GrapeFarmerAl »

If I'm not mistaken the real advantage to the "adjuster" is to increase the ramp on the lift.. so it doesn't really meet the description of fastener...
hardingfv32
Posts: 104
Joined: June 9th, 2015, 8:04 pm

Re: December Minutes

Post by hardingfv32 »

1) There is no such thing as a 'ball' socket (head) fastener if you review any large fastener catalog. 'Ball' is not used as an adjective when describing the head of a fastener. There are threaded shafts with balls on the end but they are not listed in the faster sections of any catalog.

2) Could a socket head (Allen) fastener have its head reshaped and then used as the valve contact end of the adjuster?

3) I did a study on the subject of valve lift and adjuster shapes. Getting max lift is really not difficult with any adjuster. The real goal is to increase lift at all points of lift... increase the area under the lift curve. A lot of parts other than the adjuster shape have to be manipulated to accomplish this goal.

Brian
hardingfv32
Posts: 104
Joined: June 9th, 2015, 8:04 pm

Re: December Minutes

Post by hardingfv32 »

Is there any reason not to formally authorize the use of swivel ball socket valve adjusters? They reduce wear and maintenance. Cost is $24-30.

Swivel ball socket valve adjusters were used by Porsche at the same time that our VW engine was introduced in the mid 60's. Clearly VW did not use them because of the cost. Is FV concerned with the cost at this point.

Amazing how this class could go five decades without implementing this change. I would say it is a clear indication of the FV mindset.

Brian
cendiv37
Posts: 386
Joined: June 25th, 2006, 7:29 pm

Re: December Minutes

Post by cendiv37 »

hardingfv32 wrote: ...
There are threaded shafts with balls on the end but they are not listed in the faster sections of any catalog.
...

Brian
I rest my case. "Threaded shaft with ball on the end" is a nearly exact description of a VW valve adjusting screw. Apparently, worldwide, the makers of "fasteners" agree with me (and now you!) that these are not fasteners. They also clearly do not meet the definition of a fastener in SCCA's own rule book.

Please, please someone request that SCCA change the rules to allow alternate adjuster screws in FV. Please, please don't use ball and socket style adjusters (without a rules change) under the pretext that they are fasteners and therefore "free".
Bruce
cendiv37
hardingfv32
Posts: 104
Joined: June 9th, 2015, 8:04 pm

Re: December Minutes

Post by hardingfv32 »

While I agree with your interpretation this does not mean we are correct in the eyes of one jury... the CRB. Who's opinion holds more weight? There is every chance a request for a written change would be rejected by the CRB as 'already covered by the current rules'.

The standard adjuster is threaded and has a nut associated with its installation. It is fastened to the end of the rocker. Sounds like a 'possible' valid argument. I would not be embarrassed arguing that in front of the stewards.

Brian
cendiv37
Posts: 386
Joined: June 25th, 2006, 7:29 pm

Re: December Minutes

Post by cendiv37 »

Are you saying that a VW valve adjuster screw "serves no other purposes than to
cause a component to maintain a fixed position" ??? Really?

Per the SCCA definition, that is a requirement for any part to be called a fastener.
I don't think any judge or jury would believe that the adjuster screw isn't also serving another purpose.

Indeed, the crb may simply reject any request to allow swivel foot adjusters. That is their prerogative.

Alternatively, they could ask for member input on the issue. Or they could ask for input from the Ad Hoc committee which they could either agree with or reject (Believe me, they have done both. Again, their prerogative...).
Bruce
cendiv37
wroché29
Posts: 163
Joined: July 10th, 2006, 8:44 am

Re: December Minutes

Post by wroché29 »

Seems to me that the fastener is the nut.
The component (and therefore not to be replaced by another of a different configuration) is the valve adjuster screw...
Last edited by wroché29 on December 7th, 2015, 2:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Bill Roché
Citation XTC41
Team FootShoot partner
cendiv37
Posts: 386
Joined: June 25th, 2006, 7:29 pm

Re: December Minutes

Post by cendiv37 »

wroché29 wrote:Seems to me that the fastener is the nut.
The component (and therefore not to be replace by another of a different configuration) is the valve adjuster screw...
Agree 100%
Bruce
cendiv37
Post Reply