brian wrote:JPetillo, the flange language has been a major concern of mine and a topic in the letter to the CRB. If you're concerned about not making any racees due to a bad manifold, call me I've got some shelf units that we can arrange to get to you.
Since I'm not sure where this issue is in the process, folks, please write a letter to both the BOD and CRB .
Dave, If the proposal has been recommended to the BOD, why do we write to the CRB? Isn't that like closing the gate after the cow's out? I confirmned my interpretation of this timing issue with a fellow former CRB member and they agreed this was out of sequence. Maybe things have changed but a letter used to flow from Advisory committee, CRB, members then BOD and only if it is a recommended. Dead issues, i.e. rejected letters and proposals, need only an update in Fastrac.
Brian, thanks, I appreciate the offer and may take you up on it. But it would be a shame if it becomes necessary. This rule unnecessarily makes legal manifolds illegal for no clear reason, and the last thing we need to be doing is scrapping perfectly good manifolds.
I intend to write a letter. I’m also confused at the process.
John
Of coarse the excess bronze is there to bring the manifold up to weight, but it is not that simple to control:
1) The word "excess" can not be translated into something that tech can measure. It becomes a judgement call by the stewards.
2) 10-20% of all manifolds came from the factory with yellow bronze repairs at the junction of the down tube. If it came from the factory this way, do I get to include the extra bronze as part of my 24 oz? If I can't included it, how do I estimate the weight of the repair bronze?
3) What is the status of the furnace bronze, red/brown in color, that is sometimes found in large puddles and/or fillets on almost any part of the manifold?
This is just a difficult issue to control. It is my experience that it takes a very large amount of "excess" repair bronze to translate into any added flow on the flow-bench. This very large amount will easily be JUDGED excessive by any rational steward, if it is protested.
The new rule about min weight is an improvement, but it still requires judgement from a steward.
Brian
Last edited by hardingfv32-1 on February 5th, 2009, 12:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
fv195 wrote:Just a thought,
is it a possibility that the excess bronze is there to bring it up to the min weight, because of material removed from the inside? an illeagle manifold, thinned out so much that weight had to be added to get the 24 oz?
just a thought.
THOR
That is exactly why the 24 oz weight was established many, many years ago. The larger in interior diameter of the manifold the greater it's capacity to flow air. I'm sure the people who originally drafted the 24 oz rule did so as a control measure. Keep in mind that even at 24 oz these manifolds are very thin and somewhat fragile. We all use carb/manifold braces to help prevent these manifold from flexing. Still they do crack at times at the head flanges and need to be repaired.
Please see http://www.scca.com/contentpage.aspx?content=72 for a description of the rules making process. The only thing I'd add to this is that if the CRB or one of its advisory committees becomes aware of a problem, consideration may begin without a member request (this was the case with the FV manifold).
Steve, thanks for the clarifications and thinking on the changes. Most of the proposal makes perfect sense and the language could use some updates.
Dave, I stand corrected on the process, but I remember not going to the BOD until things received adequate positive membership input.
The above post is for reference only and your results may vary. This post is not intended to reflect the views or opinions of SCCA and should not be considered an analysis or opinion of the rules written in the GCR.
I think we need to address in letters those issues with the new rules where a standard non-vee-literate tech guy can't misinterpret them. The rule about a manifold having to weight 24 oz. before repair is honorable for fairness, but simply unenforceable. That one simply scares me. Some of our tech guys are top notch, some not so much. Remember, the good guys will do whatever they can to not over-rule a bad call. Don’t ask me how I know. Anyway, it human nature in organizations for people to protect their own - that will never change.
Don’t forget we have many tech guys that have zero technical background. They are there as volunteers, and there is no minimum set of credentials. They are interested in the sport - that brings them there! We need to help them do their jobs. Too many of us have witnessed their technical interpretations being far off due to lack of background. It makes you want to scream. Anyway, we need to offer suggestions for these rules so that ambiguity can be minimized.
For me, I’m afraid that my already poor performing manifold will be illegal because the silly circled VW on one side is mostly gone once they drilled the stud holes. That will cause what really is a not-top-performing legal manifold that meets the spirit of the old and new rules to have to be replaced. That could sideline me this year if that ends up happening. Perhaps you folks in the know about manifolds can come up with another criterion for the flanges to be measured by. The circled VW cannot ensure compliance anyway, they are relatively randomly located.
So, let’s continue this discussion and then send our letters out, say, by the weekend. If there are going to be new rules, let’s help these folks make them tight.
As far as I am concerned as long as part of the silly circled vw is there you should be good to go. But frankly you bring up another very good point which I would like our class to work on. Very few of the tech personel within SCCA are FV literate. I submit that we should undertake a program to get FV specific technical information distributed to the tech people throughout the country. This could/should consist of basic information (pictures and/or samples) of what to look for on our cars. We now have people both on the BOD and the CRB who are amoung the most knowledgeable in our class that might be able to put something like this together. I haven't spoken with any of them about this, but wouldn't this be something to push for?
How about having a "tech rep" from each class obtain a tech license? I feel it's a little much to expect the tech crew to be comprehensively literate for all the classes. I volunteer to cover New England Region.
Maybe more than 90% of Tech activities relate to safety equipment and issues at a normal Regional. Additionally, at a National they will have the perfunctory two item post race inspection to deal with. How often does a real non safety rule issue, for any class, actually present itself at Tech? For better or worse, the fact is this is just not a well practiced activity for either Tech or the Stewards.
Vee rules need to be as clear as possible to the layman. While Tech could be expected to have some rule interpretation skills, the Stewards (the final judges) do not.
I chime in with my scrutineer hat on and reiterate that it is impossible to be knowledgable about all the classes and I would prefer tech stay with general prep issues and safety. We've all had experiences with overzealous tech folks getting involved with the details of a class. Remember the carb holes a few years ago? Usually there are local "experts" that can be consulted by tech. I like the idea of a class specific specialist in tech but there could be issues of independence. Especially in the case of a protest. On the Wes coast, most tech folks know I have a scrutineer license and will listen to me.
The above post is for reference only and your results may vary. This post is not intended to reflect the views or opinions of SCCA and should not be considered an analysis or opinion of the rules written in the GCR.
SOseth wrote:As far as I am concerned as long as part of the silly circled vw is there you should be good to go.
Perhaps this is sufficient. Let's recommend this to the boards - it needs to be stated in the rules.
SOseth wrote:But frankly you bring up another very good point which I would like our class to work on. Very few of the tech personnel within SCCA are FV literate. I submit that we should undertake a program to get FV specific technical information distributed to the tech people throughout the country. This could/should consist of basic information (pictures and/or samples) of what to look for on our cars. We now have people both on the BOD and the CRB who are among the most knowledgeable in our class that might be able to put something like this together. I haven't spoken with any of them about this, but wouldn't this be something to push for?
SteveO
Certainly something along these lines would help. I've seen others' comments after yours, and like everything, there isn't a perfect solution. But, having such an FV person or persons in our region that are acknowledged experts for the tech crew to ask for advise would have smoothed over a few major bumps at tech this past year. I think asking the tech folks themselves to become FV fluent no mater how detailed a description manual we give them may be asking too much. I think the non-technical tech folks may just get more confused. We need advisers for them. This is probably a good idea for all classes.
Thanks, John
John,
With all due respect, you race at the regional level like I do in the Northeast. Almost everyone there runs the same equipment from the same providers and I don't know of anyone that is either being scrutinized to the levels you are concerned about or are suggesting should occur. Beyond oil changes and valve adjustments I do very little to my engine and trust that my engine builder has been compliant to the rules. This formula has worked for many years. The last thing I want is someone that has a idiots guide to FV telling me what is right and/or wrong that would prevent me from racing. I also think we have some very good tech people in the Northeast who both understand what we race with an emphasis toward being safe. I gaurantee you that if anyone showed up in our region and smoked the typical front runners at either the National or Regional level there would be lots of questions asked and lots of paddock scrutiny of that car. The SCCA already has enough Napoleons and making new ones isn't going to keep the entries up. Within the FV class, performance differences are readily apparent and there already exists a mechanism to address this, it is called a protest and is premised on posting a bond to tear down a competitors car as needed. If I read this thread correctly those questions are being asked now. Lets not make this worse by coupling future racing to new levels of uninformed scrutiny.
Jim Regan
Jim,
Actually, my comment above stemmed from tech and safety issues and not performance. But, I agree with you completely. I'm not convinced that an idiots guide (not my idea) is the answer for exactly the reasons you stated, and I can see that Napoleons can cause potential disasters in their own right. I was originally suggesting that the rule be as unambiguous as possible (I know that's always the intent of the writers), but that shouldn't move us in the direction of uninformed scrutiny. Perhaps I'm wrong.
John
Not sure why we have three seperate areas of posts on the same topic, but I urge all to read the post by SteveO, dated feb. 08, 2009, where it states: "In addition, the maximum OD of the manifold measured where the tube inserts into the two head flanges, and just above any repair material that has been added, is 1.050 inches".
As I stated under the Subject line: "RULE CHANGE": This deems the majority of the manifolds (some of them being 3 to 5 years old, and from different suppliers) hanging in my shop, to be ILLEGAL!!! Some are conciderably larger than that dimension. All of these comply with the rules on Min. weight, downtube and horizontal sizes, as well as the feet.
Where the heck did THIS come from? If this becomes law, I see alot of very expensive pipes becoming illegal junk.
Mike Palermo Jr.
Peak Performance Racing
I second Mike's discovery. Out of 9 mainfolds in the shop, two are illegal & larger than the 1.050.
The above post is for reference only and your results may vary. This post is not intended to reflect the views or opinions of SCCA and should not be considered an analysis or opinion of the rules written in the GCR.
Does this latest change to the manifold rules mean the subject is brought back to the CRB or will this continue at the Board level?
While the latest rule change is a GOOD idea, the dimension to be used would seem to be difficult to set correctly. A survey might be required to determine the best compromise. Can we assume the "Manifold Committee" checked with people who had numerous manifolds, other than Mike Kochanski, to develop the number that was decided on?
Why do we care about outside diameter or weight. All we need is an inside diameter measured about a half to 3/4 of an inch above the manifold base. All that would be needed to check would be a ball or better a cylinder.
Dan
Your idea is absolutely correct, IF we were starting with a clean sheet of paper. The interior has always been an area free of rules. It would be problematic to change at this point. The manifold cores I now get always have some form of rust in them. Would it seem reasonable to allow a competitor to remove this rust? How do you control the amount of cleaning be done and thus the ID?
The reason for the current manifold rule changes is to control the progress in manifold development. The art is in crafting new rules that do not obsolete to many of the current manifolds.
What is making this more difficult is the secretive, intentional or unintentional, way in which revisions are being decided on. There is an almost total lack of information for the bases for many of the decisions being made. S Oseth has been our only glimmer of insight into the proceedings. Since this forum is about the only way to communicate on this subject and many involve with the new revisions have access to this form, why are they not talking?
Maybe it this is how it was done before the Internet, but now with the easy with which information in disseminated such silence raises suspicions.
The rules say....
"Averaged horizontal tube dimension shall not exceed 0.994 inches O.D."
So the Horizontal tube ends at the manifold flanges Yes !
so I would think the rule that says .....
"In addition, the maximum OD of the manifold measured where the tube inserts into the two head flanges, and just above any repair material that has been added, is 1.050 inches". Is generous!
Using the if """not ALLOWED", then you CAN'T - if in doubt, DON'T'.""""" Rule......Then any part of horizontal tube "considerably" larger than "one inch" would Indeed be Illegal No matter how old, or who's wall they hang on.
READ and APPLY ALL the language in the manifold rule section. You are completely wrong.
How large was your manifold survey? 1.050 is proving to be very close, if not too small, for many of the manifolds in service at this time.
The procedure that ALLOWS the manifold tubing to be expanded (balling) has been used for 35 or more years. This is ALLOWED, or why would it not have been ruled illegal by now?
Call if you want me to walk you through the subject.
Brian Harding
Monster Manies
310 455-2747
I would say all cores are below the .994 number set for the measured areas of the horizontal tube. The shoulders or bends of the horizontal tubes have been larger than this every since the rule was changed to measure only in straight areas. This change was made because it is difficult to make measurements on bends.
The issue with the 1.050 measurement is that this has been an area free of measurement and commonly much bigger than .994, and in some cases larger than 1.050. I was not the first to enlarge the shoulders. I have just greatly expanded on what was already being done. If you are truly trying to control costs you will want to make sure the 1.050 number does not effect to many other manifolds made by other venders.
Every GOOD flowing manifold ever used in FV has had balls driven through them.
hardingfv32-1 wrote:I would say all cores are below the .994 number set for the measured areas of the horizontal tube. The shoulders or bends of the horizontal tubes have been larger than this every since the rule was changed to measure only in straight areas. This change was made because it is difficult to make measurements on bends.
The issue with the 1.050 measurement is that this has been an area free of measurement and commonly much bigger than .994, and in some cases larger than 1.050. I was not the first to enlarge the shoulders. I have just greatly expanded on what was already being done. If you are truly trying to control costs you will want to make sure the 1.050 number does not effect to many other manifolds made by other venders.
Every GOOD flowing manifold ever used in FV has had balls driven through them.
Brian
Hi Brian,
Please tell me how you would explain how any part of the horizontal tube being larger then "one inch" would be "legal" when the rules say....""".Averaged horizontal tube dimension shall not exceed 0.994 inches O.D."""
All the manifolds in our possession, we have "3",, all are are "under",,, 1.050 when measured on the horizontal tube Just above the flange....We never checked the numbers before cause We rely on VSR and Autowerks To take care of that stuff......
I love it when Brian talks dirty but in response to your question regariding the 1.050 on virgin manifolds: NONE. Virgin manifolds run int he 1.02xx area.
Eugene, as Brian said, when the rules were rewritten many years ago the bent or curved sections were excluded from messurement and some manifold makers took advantage of this ommission. You may argue that the whole horizonal tube should not exceed .994, but there wasn't a provision for testing the curved portion. This rule rewrite is designed to eliminate some of the ambiquity. Very few of us confirm the parts we buy from our suppliers. While it is rare that stuff has to be rechecked, I do recommend doing so.
The above post is for reference only and your results may vary. This post is not intended to reflect the views or opinions of SCCA and should not be considered an analysis or opinion of the rules written in the GCR.
I understand that prior to this proposal, there was nothing clearly stated in the rules regarding the maximum legal diameter of the curved tubing of the VERTICAL legs of the manifold between the curve and the flange. But what I don't understand is how the supposed "ambiguity" resulting from the lack of a published dimension made it acceptable (I hesitate to use the word "legal") to enlarge that area to the dimensions being mentioned here when the third paragraph of the FV rules states: "Any allowable modifications are stated herein. IF IN DOUBT, DON'T."