February Minutes

Post Reply
alberto
Posts: 30
Joined: August 22nd, 2012, 1:05 am

February Minutes

Post by alberto »

The FV Ad Hoc Committee met February 3, 2016

Members Present: Stevan Davis, Barrett Hendricks, Bruce Livermore, John Petillo, Alex Bertolucci
Guest: Fred Clark

John Petillo reported on the Racer’s Expo 2016. Northeast Formula Vee group (NEFV) and New England Region SCCA both had booths together at the event. Aside from the interest in racing Vees, for those who were serious about possibly getting started, the questions of “How do you get started?” and “What do I need to do?” were the most repeated questions. A takeaway from the Expo is the importance of explaining how to get started in the class/racing in a manner that reduces perceived obstacles. The next Northeast Formula Vee promotional event will be at Race-A-Rama in Springfield, MA February 26-28, 2016.

There was general discussion regarding mixed group racing. This continues to be a safety concern for all committee members.

GCR Section 9.1.1.C.5.D.6
The Committee continued discussion from January’s meeting regarding modifying this section to better emphasize that the words “machine any previously machined surface" only applies to those items specifically in Section 9.1.1.C.5.D.6. There is a concern that this wording has been taken out of context and applied to other engine components (e.g. machining valve guide bosses).

Also, during the January meeting the Committee was made aware of engines with pistons that have had material removed from the top – apparently intentionally leaving a non-planer top surface. If these pistons were to be measured at their low points or if multiple measurements for each piston were to be averaged during a teardown, then that engine could potentially be determined to meet the rules by some inspectors, while actually having higher compression and therefore a performance advantage. As a result, discussion was held regarding clarifying, “Minimum depth, top of cylinder barrel to top of piston.” Based on the Schultheis Scrutineers Handbook this measurement for each cylinder should be made by finding the highest spot of each piston (lowest measurement value). Then the numbers from each cylinder are averaged for the official deck height. The Committee agrees that this should be the proper procedure and intends to submit a request to the CRB to modify the GCR wording to make the process more clear.

In light of this interpretation of GCR Section 9.1.1.C.5.D.6, a concern was raised that, if "machining of any previously machined surface" is not generally allowed in FV, then repairing damaged engine parts would also not be generally allowed. Although it is not currently stated or allowed, it is the Committee’s belief that repairing damaged parts should be within the intent of the rules, so long as there is no competitive advantage gained. Therefore, the Committee will review the possibility of proposing language that would specifically address repairing damaged engine parts to make them serviceable. Further discussion will be held at the next meeting.

GCR Section 9.1.1.C.5.D.11
While reviewing GCR Section 9.1.1.C.5.D.6, a Committee member noticed contradictory language in 9.1.1.C.5.D.11, “dimensions are included for information only and must be observed.” A proposed recommendation is to remove, “are included for information only, and” and emphasize “dimensions must be observed". Also, it was noted that the valve diameters could be listed as a single maximum value for each valve (exhaust and intake) instead of listing both the smaller and larger values for each valve.

GCR Section 9.1.1.C.5.D.14
The committee is sensitive to the cost and relative scarcity of good cylinder heads and does not wish to obsolete any heads as a result of the recommended changes to 9.1.1.C.5.D.6. With this in mind, we propose a change to the valve spring rules to eliminate any real or perceived advantage gained by reducing the size of the valve guide bosses. Since the intent of the rules is that valve guide bosses are not allowed to be machined, the minimum inside diameter of the valve spring should be limited by the size of the unmodified valve guide boss. Therefore, setting a minimum inside diameter for the lower portion of the valve spring would restrict the selection of valve springs to those that would fit over an unmodified guide boss. Committee members have measured a sample of head guide boss diameters to determine what values would be appropriate. This data will be used to develop a recommended change to the valve spring rules.

The Committee plans to propose to the CRB that changes be made to the sections discussed above. If any of these are accepted "as is" or with modification by the CRB, it is expected that most, if not all changes would go out for member input. A second draft of possible modifications to the above sections will be discussed at the next Committee meeting.

No other items were presented or discussed.

Next meeting March 2, 2016
sharplikestump
Posts: 183
Joined: January 12th, 2009, 2:28 pm

Re: February Minutes

Post by sharplikestump »

If I read your post correctly, I believe there is a flaw in your proposed technique of measuring the deck height that could find a large percentage of the engines to be illegal. Because the width of the rod bushing is what determines how square the piston sits in the jug, and that bushing is often less than 1/3rd the width of the piston, if that end of the rod is anything other than perfectly square to the bore, it will magnify the amount of "tilt". For example: With the minimum legal deck clearance being .039 inch, and on a particular piston it would be possible to have an average above that, say .040, but if the small end bushing is just .002 out of parallel to the big end bore, you are likely to have something like .043 on either the intake or exhaust side, but .037 diametrically opposed. Are you suggesting that makes it illegal? It is also possible that the cylinder seats on the case are not parallel to the C/L of the crankshaft bores. Actually it is rare that they are, with the worst that I have seen over the years to be out .012 from one cyl. C/L to the adjoining one. This, along with wanting to establish equidistance to C/L is why we blueprint the cases. IMO, the item to check is the piston itself. I don't know if you are talking domed (convex) or dished (concave), and there is a caveat there too. It is not uncommon for some of our pistons to develop a slight sinkhole over time. I am talking in terms of only a couple thou, which actually drops the C.R. minutely. If you are talking a domed piston, something is not right.
sharplikestump
Posts: 183
Joined: January 12th, 2009, 2:28 pm

Re: February Minutes

Post by sharplikestump »

Since you intend to change valve springs to no longer be free, as they always have been(as long as they were magnetic), which will make approximately 30 of my customers engines illegal, would you mind sharing with me what you perceive to be the advantage of a smaller boss/spring? Is there an advantage to the BeeHive style spring? Many of us believe so. Is there an advantage to a smaller boss? I don't see it, other than by resizing it, you can eliminate the mislocation in relation to the valve. Does the smaller dia. spring allow you to run a smaller, lighter retainer? Maybe, but with our low lift cams, it is also possible to obtain the same "advantage" by designing a spring with a wider difference in top and bottom diameters. Another approach would be to allow aluminum retainers with stock diameter bosses only. Also, I saw how much difference you found in boss diameters on a very small sampling of heads. I think you need to factor in that not only were these heads manufactured at several different locations in Germany, let alone in several different countries, and not one of you can show me a specified dia. for the guide bosses. One of you even previously stated that the bosses were cast and not machined! Did they cast in the tooling marks?
This reminds me of the Chinese piston fiasco and all the bogus falsehoods your group were spreading about them only to find that the real issue was that some of you had a number of the much more expensive K/S ones on the shelf and worried about being able to sell them. Are we sure this is not the same thing with these springs? Are you truely working for the good of the class or your own self interest?

It may be a lot of fun for some of you to want to dictate the law on this class, but for myself, I sure would appreciate having someone on your committee knowing what they are talking about. How many of you guys have actually been through an inspection/teardown at the Runoffs (AND had your engine pass)?
hardingfv32
Posts: 104
Joined: June 9th, 2015, 8:04 pm

Re: February Minutes

Post by hardingfv32 »

They know exactly what they want to accomplish on this subject. The reduction of the guide boss is not considered a valid interpretation of the rules. There is a good chance many on the committee would have your heads declared illegal. The specification of the spring ID is a compromise that achieves the goal of having springs that fit over the stock boss. This rule formulation will allow the reduction of the guide bosses to be considered irrelevant... thus be venting the scraping of a lot of heads.

Time to send those letters to the CRB.

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

Re: February Minutes

Post by sharplikestump »

hardingfv32 wrote:They know exactly what they want to accomplish on this subject. The reduction of the guide boss is not considered a valid interpretation of the rules. There is a good chance many on the committee would have your heads declared illegal. The specification of the spring ID is a compromise that achieves the goal of having springs that fit over the stock boss. This rule formulation will allow the reduction of the guide bosses to be considered irrelevant... thus be venting the scraping of a lot of heads.
Brian, your stating in your post, "January Minutes", dated Mar 1, 2016 at 11:33am that you have achieved 30% reduction in spring pressures with full diameter springs tells us that the reduction of the guide boss is already irrelevant. I obviously need to keep at it, as I am barely 1/2 way there. Thank you for that!

Time to send those letters to the CRB.

Brian
Post Reply