New manifold rules in GCR

[hardingfv32-1]

Eugene

The COMPLETE section on the horizontal tube reads:

b. Horizontal Tube: The horizontal tube shall be measured at four different locations on each side of the down tube. The area to be measured on each side of the down tube is defined as being BETWEEN the bend and a point that is 1.500” from the center of the down tube connection. Each measurement will be taken four (4) times, rotating around the circumference of the tube, and averaged. Averaged horizontal tube dimension shall not exceed 0.994 inches O.D. Removing material from the outside of the manifold to achieve the legal dimension is not permitted.

These sentences are defining an area where the measurements will be taken as the straight zone of the horizontal tube/legs. This was done to provide for easier measuring by tech. The people who made this rule change KNEW what might happen. The bends of ALL good flowing manifolds will be enlarged in this area. I just saw NO reason to stop at say 1.050. I have made manifolds that are about 1.140, Big Bertha, the same size of down tube spec. Manifold suppliers were being ALLOWED to go to 1.050, by your own admission (purchases). HOW would I know it was NOT ALLOWED to go to 1.140. I do not read minds. My skill is making the best manifolds available.

Brian
310 455-2747

[problemchild]

Eugene, Eugene, Eugene ....

You just don't get it. If we do not allow people to push the envelope and go into the "gray" areas of rule interpretatation, racers would be able to use the same parts for years and decades without spending money to upgrade their parts. The only reason to replace an intake manifold would be if it rotted out or got damaged in a crash.

[hardingfv32-1]

Matt

How do you prove that an area lacking control dimensions is being enlarged? How would you word the protest for Tech? VW does not have a spec for this area. Tech must be able to administer a rule in a reasonable manner.

Do you drive faster than the speed limit? This is no different. This ambiguity was pushed by every manifold supplier, without concern to it's possible legality. 70, 75, 80 mph, how was I to know that the CHP had decided to give out tickets at 85. I can back it down now that I know a little more about the limit. That being said, I'm not afraid of a ticket every once and awhile.

Brian

[Matt King]

HOW would I know it was NOT ALLOWED to go to 1.140.

Where in the rules does it say you can do that? The first manifold that showed up at a National race looking like a snake that swallowed a rat should have been bounced for not passing the most obvious eyeball inspection. Shame on the people responsible for making and enforcing the rules that the situation got this far out of control.

[Matt King]

70, 75, 80 mph, how was I to know that the CHP had decided to give out tickets at 85.

Sure it's ambiguous, but don't be surprised that when the rule finally gets published in black and white that it turns out the speed limit really was 70mph the whole time.

[hardingfv32-1]

The rule change could be 15-20 yrs old. Say the first manifold showed up at about 1.005 (.994 starting point) and stayed that way for a year or two. You would not be able to make a visual judgement on that .010. Do another .005 every year or two and you quietly make your way to 1.050. Now remember all the manifolds suppliers are slowly following suit. At Tech even if you are a little ahead of the curve, it will not be detectable because all the other manifolds around are looking just as big.

This is just not something that would be easy to spot. The cutting edge parts are going to show up on the front runners who are assumed to be fast. You must file a protest to challenge what is going on. Of coarse that assumes you have a clue. About the only time a manifold is going to be checked is at Runoff's Tech and they are not going enforce some vague rule that lacks a dimension. To them, if something lacks a dimension it must not be considered important by the class competitors. They will not be forced to open a can of worms.

With everyone still traveling 80, no way the CHP can enforce 70 mph.

This is a very old class, very little has happened by accident.

Brian

[FV94]

To throw another "monkey wrench" into this discussion -
What about some of the manifolds that have appeared recently in which the horizontal tube is clearly not horizontal - i.e. the intersection of the down tube and the cross tube has been modified so that the actual angle is much greater than 90 deg?
I am guessing that maybe the intersection area was heated and the downtube pulled upward.
Whatever the process, the result (to this untrained eye) appears to promote better flow.
The rule refers to a horizontal tube, but I am unaware of any action holding these manifolds to be illegal.
Quite frankly, this whole mess is very discouraging.
The last thing FV needs in these times of economic problems, on top of a decade long decline in the average number of entries, is another expensive "improvement" requiring vee drivers to spend more money to remain competitive.
We don't need another round of everyone spending big bucks to end up equal again.
We need more real "spec" and less room for "development".
Years ago, if the rules had required everyone to run VW steering dampers, we could have saved all the money that was spent on Koni's, then Penskes, and now Olins are looming!
The cars are faster with the improved shocks, but I am sure we have lost some drivers along the way.
The racing would still be as good if we had been required to stay with VW steering dampers.
There are other examples of this, the rejection of a spec tire being the most recent.
Will vee drivers wake up before the class is totally dead?

[smsazzy]

Will vee drivers wake up before the class is totally dead?

I thought being the 3rd highest class in terms of national participation and being perennially among the highest attended classes at the runoffs meant we were doing something right????

The days of 45 car fields may be a thing of the past, but that hardly says the class is being killed off.

Just my opinion.

Also, if you want to restrict all innovation, what's the fun in that? You'll never have full parity. Next everyone will complain that someone came out with a chassis that has won the last several runoffs, but it is a $20,000 car. Oh wait, that already happened. Why don't we all go buy spec racers then...... Don't think for a second that spec cars are the answer either. Look at NASCAR. They all run the same chassis, same tires, etc. but the most innovative crew chief and team has won three years in a row.

I like the fact that I can still look for innovative ways to improve the performance of my car. It keeps it fun.

[CitationFV21]

[quote="FV94"]To throw another "monkey wrench" into this discussion -
What about some of the manifolds that have appeared recently in which the horizontal tube is clearly not horizontal - i.e. the intersection of the down tube and the cross tube has been modified so that the actual angle is much greater than 90 deg?
I am guessing that maybe the intersection area was heated and the downtube pulled upward.
Whatever the process, the result (to this untrained eye) appears to promote better flow.
The rule refers to a horizontal tube, but I am unaware of any action holding these manifolds to be illegal.
.........[/quote]

I believe this goes under section D. Allowed Modifications- if it does not say specifically that it is allowed, then it is NOT allowed.

And with the comment that if the rules do not specify a dimension, then it must not be important (or free), my interpetation is that the dimentions given for the horizontal tube means that only that portion of the tube can be blueprinted - all other parts have to remain stock! So if the .994 dimension is a maximum, you should not put anything through the tube that could not go through the entire tube without enlarging that dimension.

Now this strict interpetation would probably mean that half the mainfolds out there are illegal. Maybe this new rule will mean that some of us will have to give up our big manifolds, and some will have to have our small manifolds brought up to the new spec. But it should shrink the window between the front and the back, even if the back does not want to spend the money.

ChrisZ

BTW - I still run steering dampers

[Bill_Bonow]

Next everyone will complain that someone came out with a chassis that has won the last several runoffs, but it is a $20,000 car.

If they could be had for $20K, there would have been a whole bunch more of them. Better push that number somewhere over $30k. Used ones go for $25k or better (if you can get one)

The manifold specification issue in FV has always has been and always will be a mess because there were multiple vendors building them for VW with specs not much better than "get the air/fuel mixture from the carb to the heads". It is nothing new.

[flat tappet]

Eugene, Eugene, Eugene ....

You just don't get it. If we do not allow people to push the envelope and go into the "gray" areas of rule interpretatation, racers would be able to use the same parts for years and decades without spending money to upgrade their parts. The only reason to replace an intake manifold would be if it rotted out or got damaged in a crash.

God forbid that we do anything to save money when every other racing expense has taken a quantum leap(from SCCA fees to lodging). I propose that we commission MIchelin to design a new "spec" tire for us that costs at least $200 ea. Perhaps a new carburator rule that allows us to use dual Webers, as well!

[VORT94]

I would sell mine today for $30,000

[Matt King]

Hmm, I can think of lot better ways to spend $30K on an open wheel car.

[hardingfv32-1]

Manifolds with horizontal sections that are not straight....
1) This is necessary because because the cylinder heads are closer together than stock. Material has been removed from the tops of the pistons to lighten them.
2) When you run balls though the tubing to get to .994, the bends straighten out. This changes the width of the manifold.
3) A raised center/pented horizontal tube provides NO performance advantage. Been there, done that, at angles MUCH greater than you have ever seen. If it mattered it would be a feature used on my manifolds.

Enlarging the shoulders beyond stock...must remain stock
1) Fact: we do not know what stock is! VW does not provide a dimension. How does Tech measure something labeled "stock"?
2) By virtue of the fact that the new rules DO NOT outlaw balling, etching, etc., then these procedures become ALLOWED. If they did not want to allow the procedures, then they would have of stated so in the new rules.

What is the cost control logic of making a large number of manifolds obsolete? It is not possible to stop competitive people from trying to find an advantage in FV.

Brian
Monster Manies
310 455-2747

[CitationFV21]

Enlarging the shoulders beyond stock...must remain stock
1) Fact: we do not know what stock is! VW does not provide a dimension. How does Tech measure something labeled "stock"?
2) By virtue of the fact that the new rules DO NOT outlaw balling, etching, etc., then these procedures become ALLOWED. If they did not want to allow the procedures, then they would have of stated so in the new rules.

What is the cost control logic of making a large number of manifolds obsolete? It is not possible to stop competitive people from trying to find an advantage in FV.

"However, the focus remains the same: to provide a cost effective, highly competitive class that, through consistent and tightly controlled component and preparation rules, emphasizes driver ability rather than technological development of the car." From the FV rules.

What part of "consistent and tightly controlled" are people having a hard time understanding? How do you measure stock? You do what we have done for 40+ years. We get together, measure a bunch of stock items, and then make a reasonable decision. If that decision means we have gone too far in one direction, it is by the action of the membership that we decide to accept or reject the changes. But I would say that if someone makes a change that invites a challenge to the rules, without either presenting it to the Comp Board or by filing a preemptive protest, then I guess you could say that person is cheating the spirit of the rules.

Also, the bottom line is that the entrant/driver is the final person responsible for the legality of their car. It does not matter what the engine builder, parts supplier, chassis designer, transmission rebuilder does. The person in the car is responsible for putting a legal car on the track. And they bear the responsibility for the cost of being legal.

ChrisZ

[hardingfv32-1]

I have not complained nor do I have any problem with the new rule changes. My manifolds will comply with the new rules, just as my old manifolds complied with the old rules. My manifolds were found completely compliant by the FV Tech crew at the 2008 Runoff's after being submitted for a voluntary pre-approval. Why would I doubt the legality of my actions if I am using the same procedures that have been used for 35 yrs. on intake manifolds? I did NOT invent this stuff!

It is not uncommon for those with inferior skills or equipment to invoke the word cheating against their competition. Just part of racing. We do not have a way to relate a meaning of spirit among FV competitors. For me, a person with a engineering background, the word spirit is a completely abstract term, lacking of any form of fiscal dimension. I think that you will find Tech and the Stewards to be in the same camp as me.

Brian Harding
Monster Manies

[jpetillo]

I'm going to try to walk the fence here and not take sides. I'm also not arguing for or against Chris' or Brian's recent posts, and expect I'll end up supporting both to a large degree by the time I'm done. There have been many excellent points in this thread, and I've been enlightened and had changed my thinking as a result. We've seen a wide range of opinions, and not one of them was outside the traditional thinking of people involved in any racing class. The opinions may differ widely, and always will. We should expect nothing to change on that front.

I think the current rule set with or without the new suggested changes does emphasize "driver ability rather than technological development of the car." I think that's proven by how close we run. The class should be commended for that - having been around for so long. It's probably not far from the truth that if we all randomly swapped cars before a weekend that we'll have similar finishing positions compared with running our own cars. Certainly the front runners will still be front runners. (The rest of us may have more difficulties not running in our own cars.)

That being said, FV is not a spec class and it appears it doesn't want to be. Although the spirit of the rules emphasize driver ability over technological development, it's an emphasis, not a hard rule. I'm guessing that is intentional. I think we all want some technological development, like for example, a sump improvement, to choose something less controversial. There will always be more controversial examples.

FV people tend to be tinkerers. It's fun and we want to make our cars better - and better than the other guys'. There is simply no way that we can expect drivers/owner/mechanics and car developers to not read the rules and try to take them to the limit. We all do it to some degree, and we can't control who does it by how much.

We may at times want in spirit for the rules not to be taken to the limit, but we can't expect it. So we need to accept that fact and deal with it. And we do. We have a way to limit how far progress goes in each area with rules changes.

Just saying that something's not in the spirit of the class is not enough. It's a nice idea, and that idea forms the charter of our class, and that charter forms the basis of our rule set. And that rule set will forever evolve to support the class going forward the way the community wants. I think it for the most part it always has, and continues to do so.

Regarding affordability, the problem is that no class can limit the amount of personal preparation time that is spent on a car. We also cannot limit how much money someone can spend on a car if they wanted to have it or any component of it prepped professionally. Someone can charge $5000 on blueprinting cams, and someone can buy that cam. It may be worth it. If there is a $5000 header system that is shown to be better, the rules allow that. That may also be worth it. There may also be a $5000 sump that's allowed by the rules that won't lose oil pressure when the car's upside down that someone can buy if they want. Someone can spend much money in a wind tunnel, and that's fine, too. Buying those improved body panels would be prohibitively expensive to some of us, perhaps. How about that $20-30K car?

With allowed car modifications - some very expensive - we do get progress, and I think that's great, and the bottom line is we'll all still run close if we are drivers of similar ability whether we choose to make these changes or not. That's how we ensure affordability. The rules will evolve to keep that in check.

I guess what I'm saying is that we as a community are no different than any other group of people in any other racing class on the planet. We will range between the extremes in attitude and opinions. Let's accept that and let our advisory committee, with constructive suggestions from us, keep the class in check. I really like this class as it is and how the rules get evolved to suit.

That also doesn't mean that we shouldn't continue to argue the points - it's how we flush out different viewpoints to consider. Let me know if I'm way off base here. I'm always willing to consider a new vantage point.

John (known for stating the obvious)

[Martinracing98]

Lets say we knew that athletes in a particular sport were not supposed to take steroids. In that same sport they did not test all types of steroids because they did not have a good method to accurately determine if the athlete were taking them. And finally we found out the athletes were taking the steroids defending it under the notion that the officials could not accurately identify if steroids were taken. Most would say the athletes are breaking the rules. Rules like this are similar.

In FV and most amateur racing rules the rules state something like, if it does not say you can then you can not. Doing things that fall in this area just because it is not able to be confirmed when and when you have not done it is still against the rules. It just makes it a weak rule.

The question is do you do it "because everyone is doing it", or do you follow "the intent of the rule". Everyone has to decide for themselves.

[hardingfv32-1]

.....FACT.....

EVERYONE (100%) who is currently RACING a SCCA FV and meets the 120% qualifying rule is not following the "intent" of the manifold rule.
Everyone has decided. Everyone is breaking the "spirit" and "in doubt, don't" rules on some level.
Do these people think of themselves as cheaters? Now I understand why this topic could be depressing to some. They are disappointed with themselves.

The manifold rules are just fine. They have been changed to control the latest progress made in manifold preparation. What is the problem with updating the rules periodically?

Brian

[jpetillo]

The question is do you do it "because everyone is doing it", or do you follow "the intent of the rule". Everyone has to decide for themselves.

Everyone is breaking the "spirit" and "in doubt, don't" rules on some level.

Good points - both are right. An example that fits both is that we were almost all running AV gas (when it was not allowed) because it was not detectable as not being compliant - analogous to the steroids. We could argue about it's potential for HP advantage or even the opposite. It probably was in the spirit of acceptable by the FV community, but it was not in the spirit of the SCCA's rules. But this practice was widespread by us. As Chris says, it's the driver that's ultimately responsible for fielding a car that is compliant.

[JimR]

Mr Harding,
If your comment regarding those finding this thread depressing was directed toward me I can tell you with certainty that I am not disappointed in myself or others I have raced with over the years, or in the work, effort and detail of preparation that it takes to go fast. In the words of Forrest Gump, "That's all I got to say about that".
Jim Regan

[Bill_Bonow]

An example that fits both is that we were almost all running AV gas (when it was not allowed) because it was not detectable as not being compliant

John,

100LL Aviation fuel (AV gas) has always been 100% compliant (and popular) with the exception of fuel controlled events (Runoffs, ect). I think the stuff your referencing in your example is C-44 (aka rocket fuel). C-44 is currently priced around $50 per gallon and because of that, not very popular.

[Martinracing98]

The problem in the end is that rules that can not be enforced should not exist. They only guide the actions of those who choose to follow at no consequence to those who choose not to.

[hardingfv32-1]

Or.......

“Rules are for the interpretation of wise men and the obedience of fools.” ~ Colin Chapman


Brian

[flat tappet]

or, to quote Rodney King "can't we all just get along!"