Latest Fastrac

[brian]

There's a proposal on the latest Fastrac to authorize the removal of the droop stop horn on the front ends. We've always been allowed to remove the rubber portion but now it seems that someone wants to remove the whole thing. I have no major issue with this but wonder why these changes are in the pipeline. Write the CRB if you have any thoughts.

[Dave Gomberg]

There's a proposal on the latest Fastrac to authorize the removal of the droop stop horn on the front ends. We've always been allowed to remove the rubber portion but now it seems that someone wants to remove the whole thing. I have no major issue with this but wonder why these changes are in the pipeline. Write the CRB if you have any thoughts.

Because a group of FV competitors asked for the change (and made a good case for it). Like you, the advisory committee and the CRB had no issue with it. Unless it draws a bunch of unfavorable comments, it will become effective on 2/1/08.

Dave

[SR Racing]

I am ok with it either way. I am not sure what the good case for it could be though. It just slightly raises the cost for those who want to do it. The only downside I can think of is that they did limit the travel on the turkey leg. On some cars the leg will now move far enough to put the heim joint out of compliance.

Jim

[Daryl]

but wonder why these changes are in the pipeline.

Same reason most changes are proposed. A competitive advantage to be had somehow, otherwise they wouldn't be staring at the thing thinking "if only the rules would allow me to.....(fill in the blank)"

This isn't about a part no longer being available. This is about a modification to an existing part. For what gain? I don't know, but someone doesn't want to remove it so they can go slower.

[clubford00]

The only 2 things i can think of for this change is either, to run something through the hole, or to allow the turkey legs to drop more allowing a lower ride height.

[RacerGeek]

This is from an email sent out to the MARRS FV group. It was from a regional guy that does most of his own work on his car, not a Runoff's contender looking to move up the podium. It was an email he sent to the FV rep for input, so the actual request might have been different, but this was the intent of the request.

It is proposed that GCR 2007, Formula Vee Preparation Rules, Suspension, Section C.3.a.8. on page 181 shall be revised to read: The rubber portion and any portion or all of the bump stop horn may be removed up to its base at the beam upright.

Justification: Safety

During hard braking and hard cornering the lower suspension trailing arms can bottom out against the bump stops thereby eliminating suspension compliance and destabilizing the car at its most critical time. During maintenance, the bump stops pose an unnecessary hand and/or finger crush hazard. Neither removal nor retention of the bump stops provides any performance enhancement.

Those few who use the bump stop as a travel limiter can chose to retain the bump stops.

[problemchild]

A change like this just is making the challenge of tuning a FV easier. I can absolutely guarantee that this proposal came from someone who mounted their beam too low on the chassis and now has interference in heavy braking situations.

We changed this rule in Canada for a while because the Warrior chassis had this problem and the builder did not want to "repair/redesign" his front end. Designing/building the car around the various limitations of the VW suspension has been part of the challenge since the beginning. Why eliminate one of those challenges?

If it is a safety item, relocate the beam so interference is eliminated. No rule change required.

[RacerGeek]

A change like this just is making the challenge of tuning a FV easier. I can absolutely guarantee that this proposal came from someone who mounted their beam too low on the chassis and now has interference in heavy braking situations.

We changed this rule in Canada for a while because the Warrior chassis had this problem and the builder did not want to "repair/redesign" his front end. Designing/building the car around the various limitations of the VW suspension has been part of the challenge since the beginning. Why eliminate one of those challenges?

If it is a safety item, relocate the beam so interference is eliminated. No rule change required.

The guy that initiated this has run a Protoform P2 for years and few would argue the fact that Dave Green has beam mounting figured out. This guy regularly runs in the top 5 in the MARRS series with several wins, which is an accomplishment. People can try to second guess this all they want but whether you support or oppose the change let the CRB know. Or say nothing and just complain about it here when it's reported that there was a result you don't agree with.

[problemchild]

Then he should raise his ride height, stiffen up, or tune accordingly. This Protoform has the beam too low for the spring rate and ride height that the owner/driver is trying to run. Changing the rule just penalizes those that have "figured it out" based on the existing rule.

BTW, this is a forum. This is the technical section. It seems reasonable that people would discuss technical matters in the technical section of a forum.

[cendiv37]

It's quite amusing monitoring the on-line reactions to things like this... Some complain if a change makes it harder to get the car right, others complain if a change makes it easier. ANY change is bad for some, some want spec tires, others a higher minimum weight to level the playing field for larger drivers. Ya just can't please everybody all the time I guess!

First, full disclosure: I was the only member of the FV advisory committee to provide input on this rule change. If you don't like it don't blame the committee, blame me. Dave needed a quick response via phone. I gave it to him but I never brought it before the whole FV committee. Dave is right in that the committe member he talked to, me, "had no issue with it". As an FS/RC member I was providing my input. Normally I do get the opinion of the whole committee before supplying FS/RC input. In this case, I did not.

This request was made by what appear to be a bunch of regional guys, not some National guys looking for that last .001 second.

While I might not agree fully with the exact safety concerns raised in the request letters, I do feel that cutting off the horns IS safer than the common practice of bending them. Bending them requires applying large amounts of heat to the horns.

Yes, lets be honest, this is how the "old pros" get around the problem of the trailing arms hitting the horns when they lower their cars without raising the beam. This is what I was told to do to solve the problem in my early Vee days. It was referred to as "an old Caracal trick", and when I asked around, I was even given a dimension to shoot for between the end of the horn to the upper shock mount. To protect the bearings and grease in the beam, one needs to apply plenty of cooling via wet rags and then once hot enough, bend the horn before it cools. I've managed to do it to a number of beams over the years without ruining any bearings or burning my shop down. I have since raised the beam mounting on my car so this is no longer a problem for me.

As far as cost to the competitor, I figure it will cost me a Sawzall blade, a bit of spray paint and 10 minutes to cut off a pair of horns. Bending would take me an hour or two and the acetylene would probably cost more than the blade. Between cutting and bending, there would be no comparison: cutting is faster, cheaper and safer for the home mechanic.

All opposed: write the CRB.
All in favor: write the CRB.

[RacerGeek]

BTW, this is a forum. This is the technical section. It seems reasonable that people would discuss technical matters in the technical section of a forum.

Thanks for pointing that out to me, Greg. You of all people should know how desperately I need direction. But as I read the posts in this thread all I saw was people guessing about why someone would request a rule change and someone who could "absolutely guarantee" he knew what the problem was. Guessing why someone submitted a request is hardly a technical discussion and no matter how many years of experience you have, I didn't agree with you're diagnosis that there's a problem with the way beams are mounted on a Protoform.

BTW, I hope you will use your time to let the CRB know how you feel and not waste mine by sending me a PM to explain in greater detail why I don't understand how internet fora are to be used.

Cheers

[subrew]

I'm totally new to FV, but was somewhat surprised to find this allowance brought up. I figured it would be one of those sacred cows that limited what could and couldn't be done with the front end. I'm also a bit surprised to find out how many people have done the "old tricks" to work around the problem, even if it means violating the letter of the rule book. I guess when you are new to a group, you tend to stick to the letter of the law for sake of making stupid mistakes, which is what I intended to do. I had considered bending the horns up a little, or even cutting and welding them in a slightly rotated position hoping no one would ever question them. But again, I didn't want to get called out on something so basic.

This forum is great for picking up the little tips and tricks from the pros, so thank you to those that have contributed in this thread.

I'm going through the 1964 Auto Dynamics chassis I picked up a few months ago, and will be trying out some various front caster settings during my initial testing this spring. With the increased caster, came a slight increase in ride height. And thanks to the stock mounting position of the beam, I was going to be close to hitting the horns, if not sitting on the horns on the big bumps. This allowance to remove the horns will allow me a little more freedom in front ride height, without having to alter an otherwise original vintage chassis. It may seem easy to just reposition the beam to "tune accordingly," but I'm trying to keep this early car as original as possible, so having this option in the tool box will be nice, should I need it.

I realize however, that this update to the GCR won't make it legal for the vintage monoposto rules, so I may end up not doing it for that reason.

Anyways, thanks again for the insight.

Chris H.
'64 AD

[butchdeer]

Even if this change goes thriough in scca I assume your 1964 AD is going to vintage. If you are preparing by the momoposto rules they are based on a 1969 gcr so you will still need to keep the horns.
Butch

[subrew]

Hence the sentence:

I realize however, that this update to the GCR won't make it legal for the vintage monoposto rules, so I may end up not doing it for that reason.


Chris H.
'64 AD

[butchdeer]

As far as I know there is no spec for the angle of the stops so if they are in the way simply heat and bend them out of the way. This hasn't been an issue for 44 years so why bother with it now?
Butch

[brian]

Many years ago, Stan Townes built a radical vee called the Sting. He wanted to mount the h-beam on an angle to reduce frontal area and ended up mounting it backwards to clear the horns. He did so because he had to work within the rules. I mention this to add an historical element to the discussion. The original idea of FV was to use stock VW components and it appears that this is no longer an issue of importance. I embraced the the principle that making a vee go well demanded the owner "figure out" all the unique limitations that the components presented. Obviously, that principle seems to have gone by the wayside. I have never agreed with illegal modifications made to the VW components like heating, bending or whatever to acheive what is wanted. The fact that it went on is hardly justification for rule change. It has become a lot easier to change rules than to figure out how to work around the inherent limitation of our VW parts and apparently the CRB and committees agree. Yes I will write the CRB, not because this change will harm the class but to try to restore the philosphy of the class I love. Happy Holidays everyone.

[Martinracing98]

As far as I know there is no spec for the angle of the stops so if they are in the way simply heat and bend them out of the way.

It is always interesting how the accepted meaning of the rule differs from what is in print. The GCR says

"The rubber portion only of the bump stop may be altered or removed."

I would think any new guy would have to assume that he can not bend parts that he can not alter.

[butchdeer]

Buy 10 Beams and measure the horn. They are all a little different. One of them will give you more clearance.
Butch

[kevin willmorth]

Given the recent inclusion of adjustable cam gears (never an OEM part), the ignition modules drop-in (electronic ignition was never offered in any 1200cc VW motor), the amount of grinding, bending, twisting, stretching, and "adjusting" allowed in engine prep all over, the idea that adjusting cam timing with offset keys to well retarded of any specified tolerance of any VW specification (under the guise of compensating for manufacturing variences no doubt), the mix and match of gearbox components to make ratios that never existed, cutting off unused brackets from rear axle bearing carriers, building 1200cc motors from 1600cc cases, distributors that were never used on a production automobile based 1200cc motor, twisting spring packs, relining shoes with carbon, welding onto beams steering rocker mounts, welding in ride height adjusters (also never offered as OEM in any form), cutting spring packs in half, etc... I am having some difficulty getting worked up over hacking off a couple of useless horns.

Rather than lose any more sleep or exert any more energy over it, I am resigned to keeping pace with it the best I can, and enjoying the class for its positive attributes. This constant banter and effort to screw with the formula is not one.

Just give me time to get the sawzall charged up!

Do people have nothing better to do but figure out even more ways to screw with a 44+ year old Formula? Oh, but wait, I'm just as guilty as anyone - <hijack comments removed> When in Rome, right?

[hardingfv32-1]

Butch is right. Without a spec and tolerance how does tech know if the horn is bent. What about bending it by hitting a curb? Learning and keeping up with how the rules are applied is a part of all racing. Its a moving target.

Kevin...did you formally apply for the weight change? Maybe a thread testing the waters.

Brian

[kevin willmorth]

...did you formally apply for the weight change? Maybe a thread testing the waters.
Brian

Hijack comments removed

[jpetillo]

This is not a hijack to this topic. If you have anything to share on this, please make that opinion known to the CRB, and the FV committee, and start another topic if you feel it is deserved - after you have made your view known to the official channels.

Perhaps they can allow us another power increasing modification to make up for the increased weight when we run with the formula fords (NCF?). I'm not against what you proposed per se, but some of us have to run with the fords, and at some tracks it's been downright dangerous with vees being so slow - and me being on the slow side of the vees. It's hard to race looking in the mirrors for the fords closing in and I have found out that what they taught us rookies in school for passing etiquette between passer and passee doesn't seem to be what these seasoned/faster guys use. This was very disturbing!

The solution is to give us a higher minimum weight to even the playing field in the way you suggest, and then give us a performance increase to make us safer running with the other groups they put us with.

I know, I know, this has been discussed more than probably any other subject. I'll let it rest!

[SR Racing]

>>and then give us a performance increase to make us safer running with the other groups they put us with. <<

Except,,, a FF puts about 105 to the rear wheels. A good Vee puts down just over 50. It would take a significant performance enhancer to get us even close. You would need something like split fire spark plugs. <g> Maybe 8 of them.

Jim

[jpetillo]

It would take a significant performance enhancer to get us even close. You would need something like split fire spark plugs. <g> Maybe 8 of them.
Jim

Jim, That was pretty funny. Just when I thought I might have made a mistake with my response earlier, you've given me reason to be hopeful. I like the idea of grafting in another four cylinders, and with proper intake and exhaust tuning, we can make up that last 5 lacking HP. Oh, and those split fires would be awesome!

Have a nice holiday everyone.

John

[kevin willmorth]

I'm not against what you proposed per se, but some of us have to run with the fords, and at some tracks it's been downright dangerous with vees being so slow ...

Hijack comments removed