Need more input on the FV manifold rules

[grimes34]

Yo Brian,
Are you paying any money to this web site? Cause you sure are doing alot of "ADVERTISING" on this board and I am sick of listening to ya....Even if ya had advert at the top of the page, your WAY over the edge with the "Buy My Manifolds" krap


eugene

[hardingfv32-1]

Eugene

I'm trying to make some points in a tongue in cheek fashion:

My manifolds, the source of all this controversy, do not cost $2000.

My manifolds cost no more than what the front runners are already paying.

At this stage do I need really need more notoriety?

Brian

[Matt King]

A number years ago the manifold rule was revised to specify where the manifold would be measured. The reason for this was to eliminate the difficulty of measuring the diameter of the horizontal tubeat the bends. IT was not intended to allow additional modifications.

Since then, some manifold preparers have felt that they were not bound by the first rule of Formula Vee which states: "Formula Vee is a Restricted Class. Therefore, any allowable modifications, changes or additions are as stated herein. There are no exceptions. IF IN DOUBT, DONT." These preparers have now greatly expanded the tubes and/or flanges in areas outside the stated areas of measurement. This is clearly not mentioned anywhere in the rules as an "allowable modification".

I agree with this 100 percent. The rules say you can expand the interior dimension of the tube, nowhere does it say you can expand the exterior dimension, so the manifolds with enlarged tube ends past the bend are completely illegal. No way was the production tolerance ever large enough to encompass some of the modified manifolds I've seen. The SCCA was asleep at the switch for years and by not enforcing the rules already in effect, they created this situation. When the first obviously modified manifolds started appearing with bends that looked like a snake swallowed a rat, they should have been tossed on their asses and the law laid down. But it didn't happen, because in typical SCCA fashion, the rules makers favor the engine builders and professional prep shops over the racer. Almost every SCCA class I'm familiar with has followed the same pattern. Those with a vested financial interest in the rules making process always seem to have more sway over the rules than the "members." It stinks just like Washington. I also find it odd that a manifold vendor is on the board that is making recommendations on rule changes affecting manifolds. That reminds me of Washington too.

I'm in favor of closing every loop hole in the manifold rule possible, and if it makes some manifolds illegal, tough. They were illegal in the first place under the spirit of the law, regardless of what gray area somebody thinks they were cleverly exploiting.

[SR Racing]

IBut it didn't happen, because in typical SCCA fashion, the rules makers favor the engine builders and professional prep shops over the racer. Almost every SCCA class I'm familiar with has followed the same pattern. Those with a vested financial interest in the rules making process always seem to have more sway over the rules than the "members." It stinks just like Washington. I also find it odd that a manifold vendor is on the board that is making recommendations on rule changes affecting manifolds. That reminds me of Washington too.

As a SCCA member (or even just a member of this board), Brian has as much right to post here with comments and suggestions as anyone else. He has made it clear that he makes manifolds so there is no hidden agenda. The "Washington" comparison is totally incorrect. As engine builders and suppliers we also post here. (and make comments to the SCCA) We also have that right. If you think the class would be cheaper or better, in any way, by keeping builders or suppliers from making public comments, you are very mistaken. The OPEN forum allows everyone to see both view points. Everyone has equal voting/input power to the Board. I (SR) have posted here with comments/suggestions that just as often that will decrease sales as those that might make sales .

Suppliers and builders deal with hundreds of customers, suppliers, importers everyday. We know what parts are going to be hard to get, which ones have acceptable quality and some pretty good ideas for input to a long term plan. We are not here to add costs. We are here to keep the class viable.
You have all the rights in the world to ignore anyones input, but not to squelch it.

[Matt King]

Who said a damn thing about engine builders not being allowed to make public comments? It's the non-disclosed behind the scenes scheming and dealing that's "Washington-like." Comment all you want, but when the rules makers put more stock in the pros than the regular joes, there's a problem.

By the way, you obviously missed the fact that the "board" I'm talking about the FV Ad Hoc committee, not this "message board," which has absolutely no official status with the SCCA, and I wasn't referring to Brian.

[SR Racing]

If you have some knowledge of "non-disclosed behind the scenes scheming and dealing" you should certainly bring it to our attention.

You seemed upset that engine builders (etc) may have more input to the board. I doubt that is the case but... If I were a board member and getting input on potential parts shortages, flow numbers, or most anything else in that vein, I certainly would pay a lot of attention to those people that deal with it professionally 8 to 24 hours a day. So.. in "some" cases, I HOPE the board is putting more stock in comments from "stock in the pros than the regular joes".

[Matt King]

If you have some knowledge of "non-disclosed behind the scenes scheming and dealing" you should certainly bring it to our attention.

I can't prove it happens and you can't prove it doesn't--that makes it the perfect conspiracy theory.

[Dietmar]

Matt:

I concur with Jim. If you know of any ..." non-disclosed behind the scenes scheming and dealings", I ( and others on the FV Committee) would sure like to know.

Dietmar

[Matt King]

Does the manifold maker on the committee recuse himself from drafting rules on manifolds that are submitted to the CRB, or does that consititute "getting input on potential parts shortages, flow numbers, or most anything else in that vein, I certainly would pay a lot of attention to those people that deal with it professionally 8 to 24 hours a day."

[cendiv37]

Take your seats: this is long...

The FV intake proposal is actually in what SCCA calls the "February" Fastrack: http://www.scca.org/documents/Fastrack/ ... ck-feb.pdf The document references the January work of the Club.

I still am on the FV Committee, I just missed the February meeting due to travel. I have been involved in every other committee meeting and the tons of e-mails circulated discussing this issue. We posted this thread in this area to try to better describe the manifold issue we are struggling with to those following it. I took the job of pulling the wording together and posting it here after passing that wording by the rest of the committee.

As for measuring manifolds in the bend, the rule changed in 1997. Prior to that (at least for some period back to what appears to be the 70's) the .994" dimension applied to the whole cross tube, flange to flange. Difficulty in measuring in the "bends" led to the change in 1997 that brought us to the problem we have today. Between 1997 and now, manifold makers (at least some) have been using larger balls to enlarge the bends beyond what is required to achieve the .994" OD in the straight sections because that area was not going to be measured anymore. The increase in ball size used has been gradual and has had only a modest influence until recently. I have one manifold that would probably meet the pre'97 rules and one that won't and both work well on the track. The older one has probably won lots of races in more skilled hands. It’s won a few even in mine.

At last years Runoff's a couple manifolds were inspected in tech that were a clear departure from past practice, literally stretching the tubing in the area of the bends to a size not approached before. They were deemed legal for that race under the then current rules, but their presence was noted by SCCA officials beyond the committee.

From the SCCA through the CRB and FS/RC the issue came down to the FV Committee. We were given a deadline to come up with some new rules to try to reign in what appeared to be a major reset and clarification of the FV manifold rules. The majority of the committee agreed that the rules should be redone to better control what could and could not be done. Quite frankly, a lot of the early discussions were misdirected as to what the real problem was and too little attention was paid to what has since been acknowledged as the real issue. Somewhat belatedly it became obvious that the real issue was whether to limit ball sizing in the bends or not and if so, to what extent and of course how it would be measured. Up to that point, no committee member had yet personally seen one of these manifolds nor done any back to back dyno work with one.

The wording that you will find in the February Fastrack doesn’t include any limitation on tube size in the bends. The addition of the 1.050” OD limit at the point 3/16” above the flanges was added later to finally get some traction in the real area of concern. Actual dyno information has since confirmed that we really do need to be concerned about this but also shows that the 1.050” limit only at the flange is not going to make enough difference by itself.

That brings us to the last committee meeting and this thread: After the meeting and many post-meeting e-mails, the committee concluded that manifold tubing size should be limited in the areas of the bends like it was pre-1997, but to a number that will obsolete as few manifolds already out there as possible. We’d like to keep the number as small as possible for the very reason VORT94 states: 3 of his manifolds could actually still be “improved” under that new 1.050” in the bends rule. The fourth would be junk presumably because it is well over this dimension already. Remember, those 3 could also have been improved under the current rules with no limit as to how much they could be “improved”. With the 1.050” limit in the bends, the potential for improvement is small. Without the 1.050” limit, the potential is greater and competitively more measurable.

We are well aware that the manner in which these rules change discussions have occurred and how it has been rolled out officially is awkward. The problem is that we can’t take a time out, discuss it, make the change and then proceed. We were really trying to get it done fast. The concern is that the longer nothing is done, the more people will get hurt by either buying what will later be ruled illegal or if something isn’t done, by being “forced” to spend another $1500 to $2000 to stay competitive.

As far as measuring in the bend, once the limiting dimension is set, a Go/No-Go gauge with either narrow blades/legs or rounded legs (dowel pins) would allow for quick determination of legality. Taking multiple measurements in the bend with normal flat bladed calipers could be challenging and is why measuring was eliminated in this area in 1997. The recommendation of a Go/No-Go system is my personal preference but not necessarily what would be used. It has been proposed that the Go/No-Go gauge just be the initial inspection and that final determination be via an averaging method. Remember, getting the tube near 1.050” takes a specific effort to do it. It does not happen by accident. I believe the manifold makers could easily stay away from the limit and achieve satisfactory results.

I agree with Dietmar that Brian H. has pretty well summarized the current rules status. The rules as adopted to be effective 4-1-09 include the 1.050” limit just above the flanges (not listed in the Feb. Fastrack). The FV committee now has information that makes us believe that this restricted location for the 1.050” limitation is not enough. So, we are asking you the FV drivers and SCCA members to provide your opinion on this issue to the crb.

As far as the make-up of the committee is concerned and possible “inside jobs”, I can assure you that there is plenty of lively and honest discussion and that a single person NEVER has overruled the desires of the majority in the years the committee has been in existence. Specifically, Mike Kochanski has been an excellent “expert” resource in trying to figure this all out. His voice has been heard, but his vote has been only one. Like I said above, the request to address this issue came from outside the committee and we have done the best we can to do what we believe is best for the class.

To Dan and others who have shown support here for our efforts: Thanks.

To those expressing opposing opinions: we hear you.

Everyone: Please do what you can to keep the discussions respectful.

[FVartist]

OK, that was long, but it still does not explain why, when the committee was asked to look into this, it took 3 months before the committee let the rest of the FV community know there was a problem? The committee then wrote a rule that was incomplete as you, yourself, have just stated. The Committee has now written another proposal to be added. I say we now have a bad rule change that the committee wants to make worse.

Bruce

[hardingfv32-1]

Bruce

I believe....The original request was made to solve an issue with an unusual manifold, maybe from Brazil, that was presented to Runoff Tech. It had very large flanges. This was the main focus of the first set of rules.

The focus of the second set of rules is my manifolds. Until recently no examples of my manifolds were available East of the Rockies, so the Rule Committee was not really sure what they were up against. I could have been just blowing smoke for all they knew. Still might be. They have respond the best they could with limited information to a possible threat to the our class. I think this is a fair assessment.

Brian Harding
Monster Manies

[hardingfv32-1]

..........THIS IS NOT AN ADVERTISEMENT..........

My manifolds cost $1000, NOT $1500 to $2000 The same $1000 that a top of the line Kochanski sells for when available.

If you wish to have an engine equal to those at the front of the Runoff grid, most National grids, and yes, some Regional grids, you will need a $1000 manifold from someone. Based on the present scarcity of these $1000 manifolds, you probably can't buy one if you wanted.

So lets proceed with rules that perpetuates this scarcity. Is scarcity usually used for cost control?

Brian Harding
Monster Manies

[SOseth]

This is quite simple really, beyond the accusations and recriminations that I believe unfounded. Several requests came from outside the committee to address what seemed to be un-intended loopholes in the intake rules. So the committee came up with something and published it for all the FV community to look at and voice their opinion. What has been published here has not been submitted the CRB or the BOD.

We have asked for all to voice their opinion as to whether we should let well enough alone and continue to allow performance expansion in the manifold area or to put further restrictions in the intake area.

We have also published a rule set that could be presented to the club and asked for your opinions on it, nothing more, and nothing less.

SteveO

[Matt King]

..........THIS IS NOT AN ADVERTISEMENT..........

My manifolds cost $1000, NOT $1500 to $2000 The same $1000 that a top of the line Kochanski sells for when available.

You having an economic stimulus sale? I thought it was $1200.

[robert]

The manifold situation is on par with the mess on Wall Street. Both resulting from years of poor regulation.

Were I to buy a high dollar manifold, I'd demand the maker state its legality, and at the very least, return my money if the manifold failed tech. I'd want a lot more than the cost of the manifold returned if I had a top three finish at the run-offs taken away.

Measuring circumference might be easier than measuring diameter. A very small change in diameter is easily seen in circumference changes.

How 'bout CC the manifold? Can't increase ID without increasing volume.

A mandatory rev limiter might render mega dollar manifolds useless. . . . and help save unavailable parts. Of course that would slow the cars a wee bit and destroy the class.

Or . . . Give the top 3 car's manifolds at each race to the bottom three cars. Heck, just make the top 3 swap cars with the last three.

Maybe convert to FST and forget about manifolds, and a few other issues . . . I'm still pretty amazed that a motor builder was responsible for a reasonable (in my mind) set of motor rules for FST.

[Bill_Bonow]

My manifolds cost $1000, NOT $1500 to $2000 The same $1000 that a top of the line Kochanski sells for when available.

Brian Harding

Brian,

If there is a price perception issue, you brought it on yourself. Here is your post dated October 24, 2009 titled "$1600 Intake Manifold". You are certainly welcome to change (lower) prices, but it serves you best to state you've lowered the price. Don't try to blame the perceived cost on anyone but yourself.

http://www.formulavee.org/interchange/v ... =11&t=2695

[Ed Womer]

Bruce Livermore,

I checked my best manifold last night and the 1.050 measurement is not an issue since it is 1.030. But the measurement for the flange that was in the other post is that going to be in any new rules? My manifold on the one side I measured was 2.987 which is very close to the limit of 2.990 but the other measurement was 1.345 well under the 1.360. Lets assume that my flange hasn't been enlarged since the tube above it is well under the limit how can one measurement of the flange be almost illegal but not the other? If we want to control continued dvdelopement beyond what we have, we do ned to be careful not to legislate out to many manifolds or we will be put into the position of the Austrailian's and need a new control manifold built.

In the current economic conditions it won't take to much for me to give up racing and find another hobby that is not constantly escallating in price faster than my income. Being like to many of us vee racers I am quickly approching retirement and I might be foreced to stop or cut back so I can retire and not be forced to sit a home and watch TV instead of participating. Stopping would be hard since I have been at this for almost 30 years and have built 17 cars and have a sizeable investment in racing vee's as well as parts but if I have to, I will stop. I did before when I reached a pre set debt limit while runing the Pro series in the 90's but now with retirement less than 5 years away it will be more than a stop to regroup, it could be permenate.

My engine builder did say that it can make a big difference if the area from the bends down can be worked on freely so I think something should be done, I just don't have the answer.

Ed Womer

[DanRemmers]

A mandatory rev limiter might render mega dollar manifolds useless. . . . and help save unavailable parts.

I think that's a good idea. Electronic ignition with a rev limiter built into the rotor would be an inexpensive upgrade, help engines last longer, reduce maintenance (no points), and be easy to check at tech.

[hardingfv32-1]

Bill

The $1600 price was for flash and to generate questions. The price depends on where you purchase my manifold. I actually don't have control of the final price in most cases. I don't mind changing the perception.

Matt

Just trying to test the water to see if a $1000 price for a manifold that levels the playing field would silence the critics.
Of coarse the price will go up if I must spend time to maneuver around new restrictions.

Brian

[hardingfv32-1]

Robert

Manifolds as well as Wall Street do not suffer from poor regulation. Would anyone perceive the "poor" regulation of Wall Street if housing and stock prices were still going up? Our manifold regulation (rules and implementation) were just fine until I came up with something new. We are now just reviewing what is perceived as a possible cost escalator to the class.

While some on this Exchange will disagree, the fact is the that the rule makers and the rule enforcers are just fine with current rules. The rules make sense to those who have taken the time to learn how to use them. My manifolds were found legal at last year's Runoffs after a close inspection. Tech did not have any trouble applying the current rules.

We are now considering changes to the rules that some feel necessary to control improvements in manifold performance. If we want good manifold rules, we need to stay focused.

Brian

[sabre1]

Dietmer, Bruce and SteveO,

Thank you for your responses. SteveO confirmed my suspicions that the new suggestions have not gone to the SCCA/CRB and as such, comments to the CRB would be inappropriate at this time for the NEW suggestions.

Again though, my understanding of the rule changes submitted in the February (yes, I NOW see where it IS February, thank you) Fastrack is that they aren't adopted until the comments have been assimilated and reviewed, with the possibility that they could be rejected if 'the membership' is soundly against them.

Regarding the proposed new changes, yes I agree that a limitation should be added. The suggestion of a go/no-go gage is great but it would be expensive (tight tolerances) and would require periodic calibration. Chances are the venerable dial/digital calipers would be used, which I'd expect the Scrutineers already have... As for upgrading manifolds to meet any new "maximum" dimension, there is a risk of destroying the one you are trying to upgrade since the metal is so thin, so you may end up needing to buy a new one!. The expansion process is more reliably done with a thicker wall and perhaps a smaller number such as 1.025" would be better, or not. Time will tell.

I do thank the FV Committee for their efforts; this can't be easy and must be very time consuming.

-Jim

[wroché29]

Dietmer, Bruce and SteveO,

the new suggestions have not gone to the SCCA/CRB and as such, comments to the CRB would be inappropriate at this time for the NEW suggestions.

-Jim

Jim (sabre1);

I don't think comments would be inappropriate. It may be confusing to reference the new suggestions, but vote with your keyboard (if you're so inclined). This is supposed to be a member-driven club. If we feel a strong desire to change, or not, we should write a letter.

I agree on the caliper method. It worked just fine on all three of my manifolds. Lock the jaws at 1.030" (in my case) and pass the thin part of the jaws over any part on the "bend" areas, no where does it get hung-up. Carry calibrated gauge blocks with you to verify the calipers if needed.

[Matt King]

SteveO confirmed my suspicions that the new suggestions have not gone to the SCCA/CRB and as such, comments to the CRB would be inappropriate at this time for the NEW suggestions.

From the very first post in this thread:

6. Most importantly, we want as many FV drivers/owners as possible to send their input on this issue to the SCCA at crb@scca.com
Please include your membership number and your relationship to FV. Stating the reasoning behind your opinion in specific, detail will also help the club to understand the desires of the membership.

I sent my letter to the CRB today supporting additional limitations.

[brian]

Boy has this topic grown legs. Regarding the committee and the 1.050 rule, I'm for both. Since all 3 of the manifold builders have expanding the curved area, you have to adopt a middle ground. Stock manifolds are around 1.02x so we know the suggested 1.050 will not exclude many of the latest generation, (post 1997) manifolds.

I know the CRB has leaned towards rubber stamping committee's suggestions and the BOD generally follows suit. That's why comment needs to be solicited before going to the BOD.

Thanks Bruce for the detailed explanation and thanks Brian for all the giggles. You just love teasing the dragon.

P.S. A rev limiter will not change or limit hp. Two motors turning a certain rpm, say 6000, will generate very different hp numbers. Keeping them from turning 6500 won't change much.