Why is the Sky Blue?

[jtgb]

I’m posting this thread in response to a lengthy conversation taking place at http://www.formulavee.org/interchange/v ... f=3&t=2874 concerning the adoption of new manifold requirements.

As most of you have no idea who I be – I’m a rookie FV racer that jumped into the fire a little of a year ago with no past racing experience. Mid-life crisis is my only excuse. So given my level of ignorance please accept that my question definitely falls into the innocently inquisitive category of, “Why is the sky blue?”

So, why doesn’t FV adopt a restrictor plate?

In my over-simplified brain I wonder how many engine compliance issues could be solved with a restrictor plate. It's a cheap part, easily added & removed, easily verified by tech, widely accepted in other racing classes, and from my limited understanding - goes a long way toward leveling engine performance by ensuring everyone gets the same airflow into the motor regardless of the variances that come after.

If the restrictor plate controls airflow, then doesn't that dissuade the "overly creative" from toying with the manifold in the first place? For that matter, with a verifiable and universally applied choke-point, doesn’t that mitigate a whole slew of other creative motor tuning gestations?

Keep it Simple for the Simple-Minded: (I qualify in spades)
I easily fall into the category of drivers that rely heavily on my engine builder for a legal motor/manifold/carb. At least for the foreseeable future, I don't have the tools nor the know-how to tear apart a motor and ensure compliance. Fortunately (for now) I have more money than brains and can afford (for now) to delegate such wizardry to those whom hold a reputation worth losing if they should provide me an illegal part/product/service.

Cheaters Cheat – It’s Their Nature:
It’s my experience that only the honest abide to unenforceable rules. Many of us can’t conceive of taking a hollow victory by cheating, but it still sucks when you lose to a cheater. From a practical sense, how would one really know that the racer that eeked by you to take the win did so out of pure genius or because the car's got 3HP of illegatility on its side? And outside maybe a national championship, who’s really out there plunking down the money to have a competitor's suspect engine torn down to check for legality after a race?

That essentially (IMHO) makes all the detailed specs in the GCR about as useful as the federal copyright warning on home movies. The absence of an easily measurable control mechanism leaves too much room for the “overly creative” to spoil the spirit of competition. More rules, like tax codes, just make life harder on the honest, not the other way around.

The Junkyard Beetle Heaps are Gone:
Unlike 20-30 years ago, we can't just go the junk yard and scour through heaps of Beetle parts looking for the Holy Grail. You either have them or you don’t. So, we newbies are left to live with what came on the car or spend a small fortune buying what used to come from diligent salvage yard hunts. Anymore, it’s cheaper to buy out an exiting racer than buy replacement parts, which just continues to shrink the number of FV’s available for the track. A little over a year ago, I personally bought two cars for the sole purpose of building one.

The Spirit of FV - Affordable Racing:
Yes, I accept racing is more expensive than sitting at home, but I draw a quote from the first paragraph of the “Formula Vee in the USA” website – http://www.formulaveeusa.org/

“The intention of this class was (and still is) that the average person could build and maintain the car with minimal expenditure, and it has proven itself successful for almost 45 years. The class was not only about controlling cost but to enhance competition by controlling technological advances and emphasizing driver ability.”

Does spending $2,000 on a professionally tuned manifold to squeeze out 2HP over your fellow competitors hold true to this belief? I’d much rather spend $50 on a restrictor plate that makes my existing manifold pretty much the same as everyone else & bank the remaining $1,950 on travel expenses, entry fees, tires, and good cigars amongst friends.

[Matt King]

Ask a NASCAR engine builder if restrictor plates have made engine development any simpler or cheaper.

As a fellow FV rookie (but not a rookie to racing) I agree in principle with what you are saying, but racers will always find a way to apply time, money, and talent to find an "unfair" advantage. It's the nature of the sport. Some things can be done to reduce the gap between the have and have-nots, but the advantage will always remain for those who apply themselves to the "problem."

[hardingfv32-1]

The cost of a good manifold must be view in relation to other costs found in FV. Take the cost of tires. Why is there no outcry to control tire costs. A properly prepared manifold lasts a life time, while the tire costs are constantly reoccurring, easily surpassing the cost of a good manifold each season.

The "intention" of FV racing is the reason that the manifold rules are being modified. We are trying to control the technological progress of the manifolds. Technological progress is not controlled by the invoking the word "spirit". It requires well written rules. Competition holds a much high priority than "spirit" in motor sports. Part of the competition in FV is having the best car no matter what the drivers say.

Why is it that most the people working the manifold rule changes already have the best manifolds money can buy? This is just competition moved to the political arena. How does this fit with the FV "spirit" model?

If "spirit" is important to you, then don't buy the $1000+ manifolds or the new set of tires. Do what you feel is right for your circumstances.

Brian

[SR Racing]

You are both pretty close to correct. A restrictor could limit (to a degree) the amount of advantage a carb or manifold could give you. It wouldn't be near the impact in $, if any, as it was in NASCAR, because our heads, cam duration and lift are already dictated by the rules. The only things we could play with are cam timing, and spark timing and head flow. People are going to attempt peak out head flow anyways so that won't be much of an issue and legal cam timing, spark timing has no secrets left in it.
Besides, the restriction that we would use if implemented would hardly be enough to make any changes, other than to decrease CFM back to the point of a good "National' manifold. (Only negating some supposed illegal or really "BIG" manifolds. (and carbs to a degree )) The NASCAR restriction is significant.

We use restrictors on the FST cars for the above reasons. While no one has dynoed every combination of motors, based upon the racing, the cars run very close. (and the difference in stock untouched manifolds can be significant.)

BTW... I am not in the fight... I am not sure a restrictor is an answer, I just want to give you my input.

[Matt King]

If a restrictor plate was ever to be implemented, what are the odds the level of CFM restriction would be set at that of truly "stock" carbs and intakes, or even rolled back to a level that negated the performance of the vast majority of legal parts currently being raced? Zero. More likely it would be set at the current prevailing level of at least mid-pack National parts, which means if you don't have those parts now, you will still be behind even with a restrictor plate.

[hardingfv32-1]

Jim

This is not a "fight". I am quite happy and understand why many FV competitors want to control the technological progress of the intake manifolds. Myself and many others are less happy with the lack of information about these proceedings. But, even this can be understood if viewed in a political context. Certainly not the end of the world.

Brian

[wroché29]

Jim;
You have some experience with restrictors; what size hole would you guess (or maybe you have data) would it take to mimic an "average" national manifold? What would it do to the shape of the power curve (if anything)?

Brian;
I'd love to agree with your '...manifold lasts a lifetime...", but "m now contemplating buying my fifth manifold since 1990. As the technology has increased, so has the "need" to keep-up.

jtgb;
Good 1st post.

[brian]

On the other side of the coin, for my personal motors, I've bought 3 manifolds in 30 years. Two from the 80's are still being run and I give nothing up hp wise, to anyone in the country. While I agree with the idea of limiting the manifold development, I feel the manifold chase is mostly mental.

[jtgb]

Brian, please accept my apologies if I offended you.

Honestly, I have no personal issue concerning manifolds, as I have years if not decades of gray-matter-tuning before I start worrying about that last 2HP out of my motor. Getting closer to the optimal driving line is and will continue to be my greatest performance booster in the foreseeable future.

The discussion of manifolds just happened to be the catalyst of my question of why restrictor plates aren't used as a method of controlling variances in overall engine performance. The rules, no matter how carefully worded, must be enforceable to be meaningful. A carefully implemented and easily verifiable choke point limits the realization of performance gains made anywhere else in the system; and thus serves as a meaningful deterrant to further R&D.

One of the things that attracted me to FV racing is the premise that the best driver in a well built car has as much of a chance of winning the race as the driver sitting in the absolutely best built car in the field. I think that premise, no matter how altruistic it may sound, is what sets FV apart from other racing venues and will hopefully keep it a viable racing class in these tough economical times.

I might be naïve, but I think most anyone racing Vees would grudgingly agree to some form of restriction, even if it meant giving up a few HP, if the end result was lowered maintenance costs and more verifiable fairness amongst competitors.

[CitationFV21]

I have had this discussion in everything from slot cars to cub scout pinewood derby. When we discussed a spec tire in FV someone said we had to allow tire development in FV becuase he had to go faster. IN A FV? Get a FF if you want to ge faster.

I will discuss the manifold question in another post, but the purpose of this class is to restrict technical development, not encourage it. If we find something that goes too far into the future we bring it back. Things like carbs, bodywork and engine cooling - people have moved forward - pushed the edge of the rules and we pulled it back. Maybe not forever, but for a while. That has been the beauty of the class, that a D13 can run with a Citation, a Zeitler with a Caracal. Not all the time, but enough to make it fun.

Some feel the best car should win. If everything else is even, the car that is better aligned, better tuned with fresher tires will win. But if a car wins because the engine has 3 more HP than the field, or has special fuel, or has one off tires, it may be legal in a technical sense, but it is cheating in the spirit of the rules.

If we were fighting for a pro championship, I would tolerate it and work on tighter scrutineering. But as one person pointed out in another thread, we don't have the time or money to do this on a regional basis.

I anyone thinks I want us to go back to Autodynamics and Formcars - I had a discussion with Bill Noble a few years back and at that time we both agreed that controlled evolution is necessary to keep the class fresh. It is 2009 not 1969.

On another note, who says we don't yell for a spec tire? We ave been doing it for 20 years. Just becuase we can't agree does not make the issue go away. What makes a tire different that a cam follower, different than a transmission gear? Why should we throw them away after a few races?

I agree - good first post - we need a kick every once in a while.

ChrisZ
Citation 21FV

[problemchild]

I will offer an opinion about the technical merits of a restrictor plate .... going back to the question above. I have raced in the American Formula FST class and read comments from the Ossie FV (1600) engine tuners who also use restrictor plates much like we do. The restrictor plate reduces the horsepower of all the engines by a certain percentage. It is technically making the difference between best and worst a lesser value .... but it is all relative .... and not particularily relevant unless you want to slow FVs down. I do not believe it will equalize very much unless it is very restrictive.
IMO, what is required for FV is a control intake manifold. Properly designed, manufactured, and controlled, it would significantly affect performance of the better and lesser engines .... having an equalizing effect. Also, IMO, we are a decade or too late in affecting such a useful tool. The people remaining in FV are committed to the "status quo".
Now .... back to spec tires .... the one single tool that can be instantly applied across the board with no hardship to anyone but huge savings to everyone!
Cheers!

PS .... I would like to think that the best driver with the best car and best engine .... will win with restrictor plates and spec tires. I would also like to think that he could do that without spending more (maybe less) than his competition. I think that is what we all want!!!!

[jpetillo]

I also believe that there would need to be a significant restriction to make sure that the plate is the dominant limiter to air flow. With Vees already being the slowest cars on the field, I'd be concerned with us being even slower than the other classes we run with and that the increased speed differential would exacerbate an already real safety issue. For that reason, I don't want to slow us down!
About spec tires, racers with more money can simply buy tires more often - that's an uncontrollable advantage. The spec tire rule might help, but it underscores that there's no simple way to ensure equivalent cars. We can't stop people from paying much more for a better prepared engine. The whole car being spec might be the closest way for a class to level the field - too late for FV. And then the guys with more spare time to prep or just smarter mechanically will have a better vehicle to race - not fair? And guys might have better tools or method to set up the chassis. There's no way to ensure equalization.
I'm jealous when I see a nicely prepped car with some simple, legal innovations, and I like to see that people are thinking. That's great to see. I hope to get there sometime. That's part of the fun of it.
I think the class is still on target with dealing with issues as they come up with rule changes, and to allow progress as it makes sense. Feathers will be ruffled along the way, but I would expect that there's no class that escapes that.
Just some thoughts. John

[SR Racing]

Jim;
You have some experience with restrictors; what size hole would you guess (or maybe you have data) would it take to mimic an "average" national manifold? What would it do to the shape of the power curve (if anything)?

I have never done any experimenting with a separate restrictor on a FV manifold. But on any engine... the smallest point of induction controls where the peak Torque occurs. The larger that point the higher the point in RPM where peak torque occurs. Since HP is simply Torque x RPM / 5252, the math will show that HP increases with induction size. So the power curve does change.
If I were to want to implement a restrictor in FV it would only be enough restriction to "dumb"down only the very largest of the manifolds. For example, we flow each side of the intake at 18" of water. Typical CFM values we see on a prepped manifold are anywhere from 64 to 67+ CFM. If a restrictor was used to hold a typical 67+ CFM manifold to 66, that would be adequate I think. If someone developed a 69 CFM manifold andthe restrictor were used, you might see it go to a 67. So, as you can see, a restrictor just limits the range. (and probably wouldn't slow down the fields any measureable amount.) So it will always be advantagous to have the biggest of each induction component. It is just that any improvement would be slightly less. So for example instead of paying $2000 for 2HP, one would be paying $2000 for 1HP. Maybe people wouldn't bother...
As Greg (Rice) points out, the best fix would be a control manifold. Where everyone has the same flow. (at least manifold wise). Of course then you have carb and heads.... .

In FST (and NASCAR) we restrict much more significantly. We do slow the cars down measurably. At 6400 RPM pumping losses are significant, and the engine HP curve is really taking a dip. (I think I published a FV and FST HP/Torque curve comparison here before). The curve change is significant. This significant flow reduction does bring the engines closer together in performance. But we knew when we designed the engine rules that we had well over 80HP to play with and no speed expectations we had to meet. Our goal was to be a couple secs faster than a Vee with only a 3 or 4 MPH higher top speed. Our low end HP is what makes the cars fun to drive. A VERY small restrictor would bring FV's real close together also, but I doubt anyone want to drops HP by 3 or 4 and drop top speeds significantly.

[SR Racing]

If a restrictor plate was ever to be implemented, what are the odds the level of CFM restriction would be set at that of truly "stock" carbs and intakes, or even rolled back to a level that negated the performance of the vast majority of legal parts currently being raced? Zero. More likely it would be set at the current prevailing level of at least mid-pack National parts, which means if you don't have those parts now, you will still be behind even with a restrictor plate.

I would hope that no one would even CONSIDER trying to use a restrictor to roll back to stock levels.. A prepped carb flows 30+% more than a stock carb. Manifolds are probably 20% more. Any realistic restrictor WOULD be to bring the very best back to prior National levels. (65/66 cfm).

BTW, Let me add to something Brian M. said... I may not have seen any of these "2HP" manifolds yet. But given the Vee's heads, CR, lift, duration the HP variance across engines due to induction is just not that great. Most EVERY engine we see (Reg/Nat) has a manifold on it that flows within about 2% of every other. So me I thinks thy protests might be excessive. When I see the first manifold that provides 2 HP more than a good national, I might change my mind... Actually, I cringe whenever I hear "1 HP, 2 HP more" etc. It is the same thing I hear from many of the "Dyno Queen" Mustang and Camaro kids that come in here to get dynoed. All that I am interested in is the HP under the used RPM curve and even more so what the HP is in the passing zones. (6000 RPM and above). This is well past the peak HP that people throw around.
Finally.. I have only been building these things (Vee engines) for about 12 years or so. That is when we first had a dyno. Every year since then I have heard about manifolds, sparkplugs, coils, wires, carbs, rings, and heads that give anywhere from .5 to 2 HP. Given that, a decent Vee should be in the 70 to 75 HP range. That is why we bought a new dyno last month. My old one seemed to be giving me close to the same numbers for 12 years. It must have been broken

[clutch]

Please add my voice to the "outcry of those wanting to control tire costs."

[Dave]

Thank God the racing season is about to start.

Dave

[brian]

Thanks JIm, you hit the nail on the head regarding mystical hp gains. There's an old saying about racing 'it's 90% imitation and 10% persperation."

Next time you're at the track, chat with some of the SRF guys. They have been on spec tires since inception and it's worthwhile to listen to their experiences. In all honesty, there's some real potholes on the road to having to use one tire.

[Matt King]

I've raced on a spec tire in a sedan class for five seasons. Racing on a spec tire is only as good as the tire choice. Generally speaking, in order for it to really work you need a tire that, to quote Lou Gilotti, "sucks, but sucks the same for a long time!" In other words, it must be a tire that maintains a consistent level of grip regardless of the number of heat cycles put on it. That's the only way to even begin to approach taking the tire out of the speed equation. We ran on Toyo Proxes RA-1s, R compound tires that needed to be shaved for optimum dry use. And what this meant was that there was a discernable advantage to shaving them thinner on the first use. SPEED World Challange ran these tires for years, and they shaved them from 6/32 to 2/32 and turned them into a qualifying tire good for one weekend. So there goes the "cost savings" argument right out the window! In our class, a set of shaved tires was good for at least three weekends, but the best part was that they were virtually immune to heat cycling and actually got better as they got thinner and were generally regarded as being close to their peak right before they corded. This year the class is switching to the Toyo R888, a tire that has received mixed reviews at best from those series who have been using them for a couple seasons.

[JimR]

This thread is depressing!
Let's look at the upside. FV racing is the still a bargain and offers close racing with good friends that care about each other. Lets not spoil the interest level in future FVers or speak to quickly toward changing a formula that has served us well for a very long time. In my case more than 30 years. Does it cost money, yes and I've spent my fair share of it and made mistakes along the way. How much doesn't really matter because I wouldn't trade this experience for anything else.
Jim Regan

[problemchild]

"Next time you're at the track, chat with some of the SRF guys. They have been on spec tires since inception and it's worthwhile to listen to their experiences. In all honesty, there's some real potholes on the road to having to use one tire."

This is a good idea. Talk to other people in other classes about other tire situations. Some will have never raced on anything but spec tires and will have no idea how great they have it. Some will have raced classes where spec tires were chosen for promotional reasons and were not nearly as good as they could be.

I would search out people with specific experience in F1200/FV/FST with both open and spec tires. Who could offer a better opinion than these current or former National FV drivers?
How about:
Ray Carmody
Randy Smith
Jay Mason
Carl Watral
David Watson
Noah Smith
Doug Seim
Jim Halman
I am sure there are many others that I have missed. I do not know that any of these people would agree with me but all have experienced the joys of buying tires in both situations [once-per-season and once-per-weekend].

Cheers!

[Greg Davis]

It's good to see the semi-dormant Vee Interchange come to life the closer we get to the start of the racing season. From this thread I am reminded yet again of how complex a supposedly simple solution to a problem can be when it involves F- Vee racing.
From my point of view, anything that can control/cut the cost of racing a Vee I am in favor of. I am a realist (at my age that gets inevitable) and I don't for a second think that by trying to equalize things like tires and manifolds that everyone will be turning identical lap times and there would be twenty cars drafting each other for the checker at the end of the race. No, the quick guys will STILL be the quick guys. However, maybe by controlling items like tires and manifolds the differential between the hot shoes and the rest of us spear-chuckers would be less dramatic. Also, all of us mid-field runners just might have more people to compete against because making the racing less expense would hopefully have the effect of increasing participation (and enjoyment). The psychology of "maybe, just maybe, that new ($650.00) set of tires or manifold ($1000.00 +)is what I need to close that big gap between me and (insert name)" is very powerful in a competitive environment. You either shell out the money (usually wasted) or give up and stay home, as increasing numbers of Vee racers seem to be doing. With the economy pinching virtually everyone's wallet, this may be an opportune time to come to grips with these issues and make some changes.
Also, just (a probably naive) idea: If we were to go to a spec manifold, how about a design that would increase flow to a point greater than the most optimal National manifold? This would help somewhat with the speed disparity with other classes in our group and also make up some of the performance lost by switching to a spec tire.

[brian]

Greg is right about promotional aspects of a spec tire. Just because you put the money up, doesn't mean your tire is the best. That's why I suggeested SRF. SCCA Enterprises and the club did a lot of testing and i understand chose the best tire. The only real advantage to a spec tire is to reduce costs. As someone said, "the fast guys will still be fast and the rest will still be the rest," but if means more folks will race it's worthwhile effort.

[SR Racing]

Also, just (a probably naive) idea: If we were to go to a spec manifold, how about a design that would increase flow to a point greater than the most optimal National manifold? This would help somewhat with the speed disparity with other classes in our group and also make up some of the performance lost by switching to a spec tire.

Greg, sounds good, but it may not help in the area of cost at all and introduces potentially more problems.

Increasing the flow will increase HP, but it will occur higher up in the RPM band. (as will torque.) To utilize this HP would require spinning the engines up faster in RPM that we are now. We don't have the capabilty (legal) to change gearing ratios, (except tires) so we will always be stuck with 3rd and 4th. We are stuck with 1192 cc's and a compression ratio and stock cam. Given that, the only way to make additional HP is to increase the RPM range. So this means instead of shifting at 6400-6600 to optimize would be more like 6700-6900. All in all our engines probably wouldn't last as long. (This all assumes that a bigger manifold would even help much with the "restrictor" now being the 28pci carb.) I don't think this will ever put us near a decent F500, or CFC, etc. with a comparable driver.

You could make a comparison with an IRL or Champ Car. Small displacements and CR can make LOTS of HP at 10,000 RPM with big induction. They just can't do it as well at 5000 RPM.

[Greg Davis]

Jim, I'm not good at the math, but couldn't the rear spec tire diameter and manifold be "matched" to realize a performance gain?

[SR Racing]

Jim, I'm not good at the math, but couldn't the rear spec tire diameter and manifold be "matched" to realize a performance gain?

Greg,

Yes, that would be a way of changing effective gearing. Depending upon how a "spec" manifold flowed and the resultant HP curve a great radius tire could help in the matching. But, I think we are really having a fantasy now. A spec manifold, new tire design and probably a few months of testing, another year or 2 to actually get buy-in from everyone and a rules change is probably out of the question... Pretty soon we will be talking about the costs and efforts to just upgrade to FST...

With the economy being where it is and the life cycle of FV. I don't think I would support any of this. Other that longevity and reliabilty issues (oil sumps, etc.), I am not sure anything like a major induction change is where the class should go.

As someone else pointed out. It is still "cheap" racing and most any rules change certainly isn't going to change the position of finishes those that want to spend the money and are good drivers will always be there up front.

BTW... It is my firm belief that if we had 20 cars at a National or Regional and took the fastest drivers and had them swap cars with the slowest drivers, the final race results would have little variance. After dynoing literally hundreds of engines and chassis'. I see the slight variances in HP from car to car. But surprisingly, you would be hard pressed to see the HP map that well to the finishing order of the cars. Certainly there are some real "pooch" engines out there, and a few really nice ones. But even the best have a hard time breaking away from a draft. FV (and FST) probably more so than any other class is a driving, drafting, prep/set-up class. The best drivers, and crew almost always finish up front.

There are for sure exceptions to the above. But I have always recommended to my customers NOT to buy big dollar break-through items until they are consistantly finishing near or on the podium, but never take home the blue ribbon. Then, that 1/2 HP, might be the thing you need.