Alternate Intake Manifold Rule.

[problemchild]

Perhaps an idea such as this, would allow the FV community to move forward with our existing manifolds but with a new way of defining and measuring them. This concept would eliminate the sophistication of production, minimalize the risk, and therefore reduce the expense.

Make it mandatory that all manifolds are cut into three specific pieces in the style of a 1600 VW intake manifold. The center "tee" section would be uncut on the vertical leg. The long-side horizontal leg would be 8" long and the short-side horizontal leg would be 7" long. There would be a maximum inside diameter for both horizontal(X) and vertical(W) legs. Both tubes would be defined as round by the maximum diameter. There would be no averaging of measurements .... just a maximum spec. Perhaps a "no radiusing of inner tee-joint" notation or a maximum chamfer width at the inside corner. No other dimensions or specs concerned. No Weight! No outside diameter! Just that it is not rewelded.

Each end would have it's own specs which could be determined. I would suggest the current 1.050" OD limitation just above the head flanges spec combined with a maximum ID(X) for the first 2" of the horizontal tube. I don't know if more specs are required but they would be in line with the current rule discussions.

The 3 manifold tube pieces would be installed on the engine and the pieces joined by hose and hose clamps, just like a 1600 bug engine. We would likely want to specify a max gap (say 1/4"/side), that the horizontal tubes are straight and aligned (within Y degrees). We probably should spec that the carb sits within Z degrees of horizontal.

That is the concept. It requires thinking outside of our current box. I selected "guess" numbers or just gave variables if I did not have a good guess. Our manifold producers can certainly provide us with a suitable ID for the horizontal section. They have been using a certain "final-size" ball for decades. Any manifolds that are slightly oversize can likely be shrunk.

Perhaps more or fewer specs would be required. The key is that virtually all key areas can be easily measured but also easily prepared. The backyard tuner will be much closer to the "pro" manifold builder. The engine builder with a collection will be able to mix and match pieces and determine the best combo ...... but that is not much different than we have now. The entire preparation, tuning, application, and eligibility processes will be improved by applying this 3-piece technology. I believe that cost will be reduced by HUGE amounts!

"All current manifolds will be hurt in the application of this rule". This is true, but I expect 99.9% will be usable with minimal work. Many crappy manifolds will come to life. Many failure manifolds in the manifold-makers scrap piles can be resurrected (if only 1/3 or 2/3). Many less-desirable cores may become usable.

Please think about this concept. Can we make it work? Please do not look at it as another required $100 update, but as a way long-term way to stabilize this situation.

[ external image ]
Blue lines are cutting lines. X area is section with Max ID spec.

[ external image ]
Cut.

[ external image ]
Appearance with joining hoses.

Cheers!

[hardingfv32-1]

If you want to make it VERY simple just specify an internal volume and an overall height. VERY limited other rules. Just expand the tubing to the desired volume without etching. Almost no need for sanding/polishing of the interior. This makes for a strong unit, as there is very little thinning of the tubing walls.

Research I have done indicates flow is directly proportional to volume. Don't worry about tech, how often are manifolds protested or even checked. The Runoffs is about the only time anything is inspected.

I would estimate that this could reduce the fabrication time from my current 20-24 hrs to about 4-5 hrs. Part of the savings comes from a almost 100% yield I would get form not having any etching failures. Etching is tricky with used rusty cores. I save time not having to use complex balling/expanding processes. Finally, their would be no need for my proprietary masked etching process that requires as much as 8 hours to sand smooth.

THIS is thinking OUT of the BOX! The volume technique is an idea of Erik Oseth of Quicksilver RaceEngines and is used in all forms of motor sports. I discussed this with everyone at the Runoffs and only found interest in the idea among SCCA officials. ALL old manifolds could be encompassed by this type of rule without modification.

Brian Harding
Monster Manies

[problemchild]

Measuring volume leaves descretion to people to remove material from a variation of locations. My suggested method gives specific dimensions for every area but about 6" of curved tubing. That unmeasurable area will have improved access so that modifications will be easier for those without sophisticated tooling or technique. My concept would be an attempt to bring our current manifolds to as common performance specs as possible. Perhaps Brian's idea for maximum volume could be the 3rd spec for each end section.

I hope the "Smokey Yuenick" types out there will point out flaws and make suggestions on how to write the specs to limit the potential for cheating or rule sub-version.

My goals are all about lowering costs to competitors. Period!

[kidkoh]

ok I am sure this will sturr up a big argument but I think that the best solution to the super expensive intakes would be a clamer rule.I know that this works for the circle track people so stay with me on this
I am looking to buy a new intake for next season, now I can buy a good intake for regional races for around 900 or I could spend a lot more and get the best intake ever created. if we could all agree on a clamer price, say 900 you would find less people willing to spend the extra money for the super cool intake, especally if I could come up behind you and force you to sell it to me for less than you payed for it. also i think that the bulders would have to lower their prices to come close to the clamer price, or at least closer to it. now this idea is not without its problems, such as how would it be inforced and by whom. what would be the conciquences for refusal to sell to your compeditor. we would have to get a base price for a mid grade intake and all agree to a set price. I know that I will probibly be shunned away from this site for even bringing this up but I cant think of an easier way to keep the prices low. if you set rules on volume or deminsions people will soon find another way to make the parts better and then we wil be stuck paying that guys price
ok I am done, stepping down off my box to here what you all have to say, remember please be nice

[cendiv37]

As I've stated in other threads, I like the 3 piece idea because it allows easier inspection of the manifold for whatever limitations we would want to put on it. Obviously, there would have to be some method of supporting and aligning the center section to the sides.

I also like the idea of eliminating at least the etching portion of the preparation. This is not a "do it yourself" process due to the nature of the etching fluids that must be used to remove steel.

Running a bit with Greg's idea, one suggestion I would make is to cut the cross tube quite near the down tube and not worry too much about what's done inside the remaining "T" except that it have a limited ID at the cross tube openings and we keep the current down tube OD measurements. No material could added to the exterior at the joint of down-tube to cross tube (where the down tube material is bent/flared 90 degrees. Leak repairs could still be made at the perimeter "lip" of that joint, just as VW has always done. We could still look inside, but from what I understand there isn't that much needs doing here except to remove any junk from the factory joining process and smooth things off a bit. Why not make it easy? If you go crazy and remove too much material and cause a leak at the 90 degree bend throw it away and start over. If you make it so thin it cracks there, throw it away: no material added to the outside here, period. If somebody can think if a way to limit this by measuring the inside, let me know. (Volume Brian?)

I'd make the horizontal lengths (up to the bends) of the two cross tube "halves" be the same minimum length and max ID. That is, we'd cut the tube closer to the down tube by about an inch on the short side to even up the sides and set a common minimum straight length for both sides (this allows common inspection tool or tools, etc.).

If this were 1966, I think I'd be thrilled with this overall idea. But...

I still have a problem with the "ball sizing" that I believe would still be required to make new manifolds based on this concept flow like the current ones do (or would flow when modified to meet this new rule). While it's not like etching, ball sizing is still not something most of us would attempt. So if we are trying to make this a "do it at home" project, IMHO, the ball sizing would have to go, especially the multiple size "balling" currently done in combination with the needed re-shrinking to 1.050" above the flanges.

(As an aside, I've been told many times about people who object to ideas because "that's too hard for the average Vee guy to do so we can't allow it." I've heard it said about cutting the horns off the beam and of installing disk brake kits for xxx's sake! So why doesn't it apply to the manifolds? Why hasn't it always applied to the manifolds... But I digress.)

You know what I'm going to say next...
For my money (literally) the best part I could buy to put on my car would be a custom fabricated part made by modern CNC bending methods out of durable materials and made to be inherently controllable/inspectable by design. Each section would be numbered and it's weight and a few dimensions recorded and logged. Maximum inside and outside diameters could be set and some simple go-no-go gauges used along with the registered weights to be sure that nothing had been messed with. Ideally this manifold would flow just a bit better than anything currently out there, maybe requiring the use of an even easier to inspect restrictor plate under the carb to attain that level of performance. Now, going forward, you the competitor can continue to use use your old manifold (maybe for only a few grandfather years at nationals) OR buy a new one. This is the same choice as today really for most of us, except that the new manifold costs 1/3 as much and lasts essentially forever (and is replaceable). Initially, we make what we need and a few extras and then make more as they are needed.

Now you could make both the plate and manifold claimable. In fact, why not require that all manifolds are collected at tech at the Runoffs and randomly redistributed for the week and possibly again for the race. Cars impounded after each session or the race (as is always done at the Runoffs) would have the numbers checked against those issued to the driver. If it ain't right you lose your qualifying times or position in the race. A couple of extra manifolds would be mixed into the collection at the start of the week to distribute to any late-comers who hadn't put theirs into the pool at the beginning of the week. Maybe at the Runoffs the spec. manifold and plate is required from the first year of implementation. If you're serious about making it to the Runoff's the price would be reasonable compared to all else we pay to get there.

my $.02

[problemchild]

In a perfect world I would support a control manifold. Sign me up if we can get a couple of hundred manifolds for a couple of hundred each, that would flow within .05% and be ready to use for 2010.

I did 20 hrs of driving last Friday and had time to think about this topic. When trying to figure out the best, cheapest, and quickest way to supply control manifolds, I stumbled on the 3-piece concept which is an attempt to convert our existing manifolds to "control specs". While certainly not perfect, it would be cost-effective, almost immediate, and would include viable use of existing manifolds ..... which is sure to draw the most fire when suggesting a switch to control manifolds.

It would be nice if some of the more technical manifold experts could rework/fine tune my concept into a rule which could be evaluated by competitors and builders. If we could plug in numbers that reflect traditional existing specs, a seamless transition would be possible in a very short timeframe. Yes, I am suggesting that a current competitive maniflod could be cut in three pieces, clean up the ends, install hose and clamps, and go racing. Any future manifolds could be built through much easier processes and production failures could be reduced or eliminated. Can it be that simple?

[brian]

Don't forget guys we're trying to have a rule for 2010. There is a rule proposal being prepared as we speak and that will most likely be the basis for 2010. Why don't we give it a chance to see how it works? The spec manifold is a good concept. Not sure I want to be swapping parts at the Runoffs but the idea is a good one.

[cendiv37]

No. We are not shooting for the 2010 season.

Fred made it clear that we are "stuck" with what we have today through 2010. What we can do something about (or not) is the 2011 season. Re-read the notes posted in the committee section if you think otherwise.

We MIGHT be able to get through some small clarification(s) for 2010 via Fastrack. The 2010 "rules season" is over. The additional rules discussed at the runoffs meeting to limit further development of the current manifolds would be implemented by 2011 at the earliest. In order to establish these new dimensional limits we are first going to have to collect a lot of data upon which to base the dimensions so as not to retroactively outlaw existing manifolds. I don't think this process has started. I don't believe there is a way these rules changes could be completed in time for 2010 even if we were allowed to do so.

[problemchild]

Wait for 2011, then see how it goes ..... I guess in 3 more years we can start working on this again.

Maybe then we can fix the tire problem too.

There is absolutely no reason that an alternative 3-piece manifold plan can not be developed to be considered as an alternative to what is already being discussed. There is absolutely nothing to lose ...... other than the tens of thousands of dollars that will be spent by FV racers in the next 14 1/2 months. Nothing!

[hardingfv32-1]

Even if the FV community had THE answer for the manifold issue, it would still take a few months to get the rule approved by SCCA. That is how the process works. Why should SCCA panic, when we are running around like chickens with our heads cut off.

I doubt many top of line manifolds will be sold until something is settled, probably early summer. There will be no big money spent in this situation.

What is the panic? IF you remove M.Varicins from the equation, it was not like Monster Manies played a big role at the Runoffs. The finishing results look like any other previous year. All the Noble, Veetech, and Autoworks customers seemed happy NOT using a large bend manifold. No panic in those camps. Was there anything unusual with the end of season division standings?

It must be that something that costs $1200 has to be better. Could it be you guys don't have a clue if these new manifolds make any difference?

Brian

[problemchild]

I guess I should not be surprised that Brian offered up his bizaar marketing strategy to this technical section of the forum. It would be nice if he could offer up technical info to combat the escalation of intake manifold cost and future rule sub-version.

I am talking about any manifolds from any producer who is having to upgrade their customer's manifolds to maintain their competitive place in a market being driven by a producer who is unconcerned about the integrity of the class or it's future. The tone of the last post could not illustrate that fact more.

I was hoping that people could assist in providing dimensions, specs, and open-minded thoughts that would help push the 3-piece concept into rule form worthy of discussion and consideration.

Thanks!

[hardingfv32-1]

Would you also like me the suggest ways to stop the escalation in shock or new car (Vortech) costs? The upgrades in these areas are way beyond what is going on with manifold costs. How about I just fix the whole US economy while I'm at it.

NOTHING is going to reduce the cost of a top of the line manifold. Even with spec manifolds, there are going to be units that standout. The quoted 1% performance range for a spec manifold is a dream. The test equipment used to test manifolds have an accuracy of .5-1.0%.

Why do the other manifold producer have to upgrade their customer's manifolds if the engine builders claim it is unnecessary? So what is it guys?

Brian

[CitationFV21]

other than the tens of thousands of dollars that will be spent by FV racers in the next 14 1/2 months. Nothing!

For the guys at the Runoffs - it is up to them if they need a new manifold - with the exception of one guy who really had his whole act together, the rest of the field looked pretty competitive.

For a guy like me who needs his manifold updated - I will just ask to have it brought up to the printed rules and no more - no pushing the envelope. Or I will buy someone else's second rate manifold. If it cost me $600 - $700 to update, I don't think that is too bad - bought my last manifold about 8 years ago? I just will not play manifold of the month.

ChrisZ

PS - I like the 3 piece idea - just that there is no going back if it does not work. I also like the idea of the spec manifold - I would think with modern machining we could do a better job. I think the Comp Board has to issue a interpetation for 2010 - this is the rule, this is what is allowed and this is what is not, and then see how it works. And remember - if it doesn't say you can do it, you can't do it......

[jpetillo]

Three-Piece: The spirit of this and other proposals is good. With regard to Chris' statement that there's no going back if we do the three-piece manifold, that is my first concern. We're concerned about future parts shortages. We will chop up every manifold being run, and then some more. If the community starts to find ways to take advantage of these new cut up manifolds - and they most certainly will - then the wars start again and we're stuck with chopped up manifolds. (I understand that good cores are hard to come by - may be hearsay.) The best chopped up and reassembled manifolds will bring the higher prices and the guy who consistently figures out how to do this will also bring the higher price. Aside from the fact that this would not be a friendly thing for us to do to vintage hardware, I believe that there must be a better way.

Spec Manifold: I could be wrong, but I'm not sure we could CNC machine a low run of spec manifolds for a few hundred dollars and have a low unit-to-unit variation. This would have to be proven that it can be done and proven to be better than our current best, and who would do this? If they're CNC machined and cheap, then would they be made from straights and connectors and then soldered together? We have a ways to go here. We still don't know exactly how this went down in Australia.

Claimer Rule: Kevin, you say "I know that I will probably be shunned away from this site for even bringing this up but I can't think of an easier
way to keep the prices low." I'm not sure that's possible - to be shunned from this site. You're safe! Anyway, claimer rules have their drawbacks, too, but your idea may still be a better solution compared with others to meet our goal. From threads on this forum, I'm not sure exactly what that goal is, though.

Why Just Manifolds: Brian is right that there are many items that are even more costly than manifolds and go unabated and no one is batting an eye at them. I think I'd increase my lap times more with with better suspension than a better manifold. The suspension is costlier. A better chassis/body would help even more - way more costly. Financially way better off folks will enjoy those better cars. We can't prevent that.

However, I suggest that we don't go on a witch hunt and track down every expensive - or potentially expensive - component and restrict it. We have always had expensive components available to the community and we've made it this far. That's proof that containing expense is not necessary. If we do want to move to conatining expense, then perhaps we should put every single component on the list and then come up with a long term plan to to restrict it.

I guess I'm not sure of the goal we're trying to reach. Maybe we need a thread on that. Once we all understand the goal, then perhaps we can be more focused for the Future of FV considerations we're being asked to write in about.

Whatever the goal ends up being, I would like to see development allowed to see how far we can bring these cars - that makes participating in FV fun - and would not want to see us moving towards being a complete spec series.

John

[hardingfv32-1]

As john stated, what is the MAIN goal of any new manifold rules?

Limit the cost? Adding more dimensions is not going to control costs. You can not make a rule that limits the effort I put into a manifold or the money that someone is willing to spend to get that manifold. It is time for the low budget regional racer to come face to face with the facts of the racing game. It cost money to play! Just because this is FV does NOT make it cheap.

Limit the performance? Adding more dimensions might restrict performance, but I would not bet on it. Even if all manifolds are not equal, does it really matter? Look at the Runoff results or your division points standings, is anything different this year? Did someone finish ahead of you that should not have? The low budget competitors are obsessing on one issue when there is a basket of issues holding them back. If you don't know why you are slow, then ask someone who does.

Brian

[Speedsport]

I'm still a little unclear on why the intake manifold has become the blame for out of control prices in FV? People have been paying $1000 for manifolds for years! So in a few years they've gone to $1200. That's enough to cause an outcry? It seems to me that manifolds and tires are the two most stable price items in our class, and those are the two receiving the most attention. Why? Again, chassis prices, shock prices, data systems, fule, entries, and even helmets are rising in cost as well. I'm amazed at the attention this single item is receiving.

As I mentioned in a different post - my last manifold outlasted 2 sets of radios, a data system, a couple of belt sets, a helmet, ect, and this is a problem???

[CitationFV21]

I'm still a little unclear on why the intake manifold has become the blame for out of control prices in FV? People have been paying $1000 for manifolds for years! So in a few years they've gone to $1200. That's enough to cause an outcry? It seems to me that manifolds and tires are the two most stable price items in our class, and those are the two receiving the most attention. Why? Again, chassis prices, shock prices, data systems, fule, entries, and even helmets are rising in cost as well. I'm amazed at the attention this single item is receiving.

As I mentioned in a different post - my last manifold outlasted 2 sets of radios, a data system, a couple of belt sets, a helmet, ect, and this is a problem???

It is not the cost of a single manifold. It is the idea that without some restriction people will be forced to buy the manifold of the week.

For instance, why should a manifold be any different than a connecting rod? It is just a part of an engine, that if it is able to be measured and controlled, you can blueprint it to a spec and the difference between any two will be minimal, and the performance comparable. This is Formula Vee - not CanAm.

Now in the world of resticted parts will someone have the best manifold? Of course. But someone else might have the best heads, someone else the best carb, etc. But if someone was able to take advantage of the rules and get someone a 3 hp advantage, you have 2 choices - everyone would copy it (eventually) or you ban it by being more specific on the rules. And it does not have to be that dramatic - hence the term rules creep or slippery slope.

The majority of drivers do not have new chassis, special shocks, or data systems (besides a stop watch or cheap video camera). Entries are a problem but it is not something as a class we can control. One FV driver complaining about a $350 entry fee compared to a FA driver with a spare car..... Look at the trailers at a SCCA regional - maybe we should have a restriction on trailer length!

ChrisZ

PS Tires may be stable, but at $600 for around 5 heat cycles - not in line with the intent of the class.

[jpetillo]

In the last three posts, there were many points made, but I'll pick these...

First Brian says that no matter what the rules he will continue to do his best to make the best product he can. Brian is not the only one who does that - he's not the first and won't be the last.

Next Michael says that the manifold price escalation is not out of line since $1000 manifolds existed before. He had mentioned that before - I had, too, and so did several others. So, why are manifolds being beat up on?

Then Chris says that we don't want the manifold of the week causing us to continuously buy new manifolds to be competitive. Excellent point. This would be true for anything, and not just manifolds. And Chris is right that people haven't jumped on the expensive suspension or chassis bandwagons. I wonder why. He's right that continued substantive improvements that cause anyone who doesn't do a costly upgrade on a yearly basis to be not competitive is not good for keeping people in the class. This is important.

All three are right!

Had the rules modification been decided on early enough then we could have satisfied Chris' concerns. But, manifolds are still in flux, apparently, and there are no new rules until 2011 to rein that in. Had new rules stepped in quickly enough, then Brian (and other vendors) could continue their development of components and people who feel they are worth the price will buy them, Michael could buy his new manifold when he feels he needs it to keep up, and Chris can buy a manifold whenever he's ready and can stay competitive with it for some length of time. This is the way the system should work, and then everyone's happy if it does. It just didn't happen this time.

So, did I get it?

Assuming that I did, then we need to help our Steering Committee write the new rules and then support that to the SCCA so that it happens. Did the manifold rule modification suggestion made at the Runoffs town hall meeting make sense? Let's move that discussion forward (in another thread) and these other discussions on future alternatives can be discussed in parallel.

There's really nothing else we can do in the short term about manifolds.

Greg - very sorry for stealing your post!

John (as usual stating the obvious and restating what others before him have)

[lauryfv]

I note that in all the intake manifold discussions on the various boards, rules proposals have become progressively more complicated. Either more measuring points, different measuring points, and now cutting the manifold into pieces and then measuring.

FV is a simple class and keeping the rules simple and easily enforced should be a primary goal. Does anyone remember the heated discussions regarding porting heads. All kinds of solutions were proposed but the one finally adopted was a simple one and apparently we are all happy with it. The rule specifies dimensions for the inlet and the outlet for intake and exhaust ports, and then states anything in between [hard to measure] is free.

Sounds to me like a perfect solution for intake manifolds too. We already have inlet and outlet measurements in the rulebook, let everything in between be free. Easy to measure, easy to police, and simple.

[cendiv37]

"We already have inlet and outlet measurements in the rulebook, let everything in between be free. Easy to measure, easy to police, and simple."

I can see Brian's eye's growing wider by the second as he contemplates the possibilities!

I'm not sure simple is necessarily best in this case.
I'm also not sure a whole slew of additional rules is best either.

[smsazzy]

I am sick and tired of paying so much for an exhaust system too. Can we have spec exhaust systems. I think that those expensive stainless steal headers are keeping me off the podium.........

[P-2 Mark]

Screw the new manifolds/ exhaust systems....just add nitrous!

[fvkartguy]

Screw the new manifolds/ exhaust systems....just add nitrous!

And turbochargers? Hell, lets bring the KERS system into FV!
I think those might add to our woes.

[jpetillo]

"We already have inlet and outlet measurements in the rulebook, let everything in between be free. Easy to measure, easy to police, and simple."

I can see Brian's eye's growing wider by the second as he contemplates the possibilities!

I'm not sure simple is necessarily best in this case.
I'm also not sure a whole slew of additional rules is best either.

I have to admit, the idea of only two measurements was really attractive, and made me think. But, every completely new approach to rules for a component brings with it every one of us widening our eyes of how we can improve its performance and stay within the rules and spirit. Greg's idea was good, too, but not 2 seconds went by before I could think of ways to use it to an advantage. I hate to say it, but rules evolution for an existing component is better than rules revolution. Please don't quote me on that!

Oh, but I really like the nitrous ideas. We get 5 seconds of nitrous two times during a race!

John

[remmers]

well, that's at least a little less complex than the idea i had at one point... humidifier for the cylinder head intakes. 90% humidity is still air-cooled