The New Manifold Rules for 2010 AVAILABLE

[hardingfv32-1]

The new manifold rules for 2010 are now available from Dave Carr or Steve Pastore.

I am not kidding. Steve Pastore recently advised a customer that his manifold was updated to the new rules for 2010.

This is beuatiful. The CRB is going to change the manifold rules under the "error and omission" clause. As such the decision of the CRB is FINAL. The SCCA Board does not review such activities. I would estimate that this formally done and will be published in Fastrack Nov 23rd or so.

Did I miss a request for member input in Fastrack by the CRB on this subject???

Brian

[Matt King]

There have been so many requests for input on this subject, I can't remember if there was one in Fastrack or not.

[brian]

No membership input is required for Errors and Omissions. Members still have the ability to request rule changes in response to a E&O as with any ruling but I would think the CRB is getting a bit weary on this subject. Maybe Fred Clark can give us the official word on this subject.

[remmers]

could anyone fill me in on the wording of the new rules?

[qposner]

could anyone fill me in on the wording of the new rules?

X's 2

[hardingfv32-1]

I was not being sarcastic. Call Dave or Steve. They wrote them.

The rules are formally a secret until published in Fastrack around Nov 23rd. That is standard procedure.

Brian

[qposner]

FV Drivers: But manifolds are already on probation.
SCCA: They are? Well, as of this moment, they're on DOUBLE SECRET PROBATION!

Hopefully there are some Animal House fans here. Thanks, SCCA. NO reason to let us know...

[VORT94]

If this is true, why do we have meetings and discussions???????

[Doug Carter]

Having discussed this with various CRB and BoD members, the universal response has been:

"There has been some discussion on FV manifolds that will be cleared up in the next Fastrack. While the details aren't finalized at this point, I can say that any manifold that was compliant in 2009 will be compliant in 2010."





Much ado about nothing. If you have questions about rules stuff, go right to the BoD and the CRB. They are mostly very accessible, especially through e-mail or phone.

[kps]

My car was impounded at the runoffs and the manifold was checked. It passed and received a sticker. Based on the measurement information provided to me that same manifold will not pass the "new rule" to go into effect Jan 1. If you were at the runoffs meeting you heard the proposed measurements. The meeting was dominated by the producers with little imput from the consumers. We were assured that we would have an opportunity to feed in the measurements of our manifolds so that the proposed numbers could be verified as fair to all. This did not happen. SCCA as I understood it provides for a once a year rule change so a lot of us drivers assumed that no matter what the change was we would be good for 2010. To get around this rule the changes are being submitted under errore and omissions. Using this procedure subverts the intent of the rule to give compitors ample time to get their equipment into compliance. In Florida we have 4 Nationals in the first 10 days of Janurary. It may be impossible to come up with a competive manifold that meets the new rules in time these races. Who wants to pay an $800 dollar entry fee and not have a competive car. Those of you who are so concerned with manifold rules being bent need to consider what you are doing to the rules that govern changes to our specification. John

[Doug Carter]

My information came from TWO BoD members, and the Chairman of the Competition Review Board.

How much more will it take to convince that if you were legal in 2009, you will be legal in 2010, no matter what manifold you have?

[brian]

There is a very specific criteria established to control the use of E&O and it is restricted to just that; to correct errors in language and fill in items that were forgotten. I can assure you, SCCA has no reason to circumvent the membership input stage. Let's face it, the CRB catches enought grief doing things properly. During the meeting, when everyone present could talk, not just vendors, there was a lot of discussion regarding tightening of the existing rules but I don't recall anything about doing so for 2010. Remember, the rewrite in 2009 was effective on 4/1. If you car passed inspection on the 4/1/09 measurements, it will continue to be legal in 2010.

At the same meeting it was agreed that some manifolds would be found illegal in the future, but that would be an acceptable cost in order to limit development. Since there was insufficient time to make the manifold rules restrictive enough to prevent further development in time for 2010, manifolds purchased in 2010 may not survive a 2011 rule as well.

[Doug Carter]

At the same meeting it was agreed that some manifolds would be found illegal in the future, but that would be an acceptable cost in order to limit development. Since there was insufficient time to make the manifold rules restrictive enough to prevent further development in time for 2010, manifolds purchased in 2010 may not survive a 2011 rule as well.

Absolutely correct as I understand it. I was also told, "It's probably not in your best interest to buy a new manifold before 2011." Take that for what it's worth.

[SOseth]

I suspect Doug C. and Brian McCarthy have this situation analyzed correctly. Let's stop wild speculation and allow the Club to do it's work.

SteveO

[hardingfv32-1]

1) We were told that regarding this subject that the club would do its work USING member input. It sure sounded like this was not happening. Did the club already have all the input it needed from select constituents before the process got started?

2) If something is being jammed through we do not have a lot of time to complain. The Board does not meet that many more times before the new season starts.

It is only prudent to voice concern as soon as possible, but it sounds like it is being handled properly.

Brian

[Matt King]

Between the Runoffs meeting and the email from the advisory committee where we were asked to provide input to the CRB, I feel like I had plenty of opportunity to provide my input on the subject.

[FV80]

Opportunity indeed... speaking of which, back in the 'meeting' thread (http://www.formulavee.org/interchange/v ... a&start=15 - about 1/2 down page 2), I asked for member input for Committee purposes to help us make some decisions for our recommendation. That was almost 2 weeks ago and I have yet to receive a single email with manifold measurements as requested.

If you guys want some reasonable rules, you must provide us with the data we need to work with. Of course, this still won't guarantee that YOUR manifold won't be affected - we will be aiming to "please" (if that's possible) the majority of the class as well as creating a rule that stops manifold 'escalation'. We also need to see the outlyers so that we can better draw lines for pass/fail. Also, of course, our recommendation will be just that. And any new rules proposed by the CRB should be put out for member input. Depending on what we see (if we ever get any data) and the results of our ongoing comms with the guy that builds spec manifolds in OZ, we might decide to propose a spec manifold (with a phase in or continual allowance of any existing manifolds).

If you have an inclination to help us out with your manifold info, please try to get it done and sent to me before Thanksgiving if possible. We need that data ASAP. About the last time we would be able to accept more data would be Christmas.
tks,
Steve

[hardingfv32-1]

Regarding the new manifold rules, the FV Steering Committee is completely irrelevant. There is absolutely no need for member input. The new manifold rules are already done.

WHY would the CRB have attempted to mandate new dimensions for 2010 IF they were not the finalized numbers?

The Chairman of the CRB, Bob Dowie, would have changed and enforced these new rules at this years Runoffs if it was within his power. The new rules were formulated without the normal preliminary help of the F/SR CRB subcommittee. Formulating the new rules was very easy with very few opinions being heard or compromises made.

Brian

[problemchild]

As a competitor who is in the market for atleast one intake manifold to be purchased in the next 6 months, I have no objections to 2009-legal manifolds being legal for 2010 and 2011 and beyond. If the people in charge can lock that in and keep new technology from being introduced, then they will have my overwhelming gratitude. I hope that no one who was forced to upgrade in 2009, will ever have to spend even a nickel on another intake manifold update. It would be nice if the only ones buying manifolds were doing it because of crash damage, or significant upgrades between levels of performance/cost. Whether it gets done ASAP as a clarification, or through some involved process, lets hope they get it right and we can all move on.
If there are a few out there with gray area issues from 2009-spec, hopefully their vender can help them out without a major expense.
Cheers!

[jpetillo]

Steve, you finally gave us what we really needed to actually stop typing and give you what you want - a deadline.

I agree with Matt that we've had plenty of time and warning, but without a deadline or goal it's simple human nature to do nothing and direct our attention to other priorities. I wish it were different, but it's not.

Anyway, you'll get my dimensions this weekend. I hope others will do the same.

I feel Brian's pain. Because the Steering Committee is made up of FV folks, I personally want the Steering Committee to be our sounding board and to be the folks who collect information from us and elsewhere and objectively focus that into requests to the SCCA to make changes that make sense. I'd like that to be the preferred way, if not the only way, that FV evolves. Changes should come from us and not from the SCCA deciding that we need something.

Let me say that I really don't know the specific charter of the Steering Committees in the SCCA. But, I expect it might be along the lines of what I mentioned above, and I support that completely.

This forum does do a good job of flushing out ideas and opinions, and I enjoy that and learn from it. However, we need some direction so that can be funneled into something that helps the Steering Committee.

Steve, I know the committee writes meeting minutes to let us know what went down. But, maybe when you state issues being discussed, you can put a direct charge out to us to respond in certain areas within a certain deadline so that some progress or decision can be made to help you do your jobs.

Of course the Steering Committee has been doing that to some large extent, but I haven’t completely been taking it that way and perhaps other have not as well.

I'm just trying to help the process improve and appreciate the time and effort you guys put in.

John

[FV80]

John, I appreciate your input and you are correct - I SHOULD be putting deadlines on my requests. I have usually done so, for the ones sent out via the registry, but not so much for ones posted here. I'll try to do better in the future

Looking forward to some manifold info.

To follow up on your comment "Let me say that I really don't know the specific charter of the Steering Committees in the SCCA"
the following was sent out to all FV competitors (that we could get email contact info on at that time) back in February of 04 and posted here on this board and in a couple of other places. Since that time we have changed our focus a bit based on input from the FV Community. The Interchange was active at that time, but the method and style of the site was changed a couple of years ago and all of the early postings were lost. This will put "The Committee" back in perspective I hope. It was originally formed by Steve Oseth (3 time FV National Champion). Although some of the members have since left the Committee, others have stepped in to replace them and we continue to do what we can to focus the class efforts in the "majority desired" directions toward keeping the class alive and healthy.

Code: Select all

Formula Vee has, since its inception, been adverse to change.  This aversion to rule changing has been part of the core that makes Formula Vee such a great class in which to compete.  Circumstances do change and the linchpin of our class, the 1200 VW, has not been produced since 1965.  We are faced with the prospect of ever diminishing parts supply.  Through the auspices of some of our parts suppliers we have been able to have access to rear brake drums and front spindles specifically and specially manufactured for our purposes.  This involved certain suppliers fronting a significant amount of money with the prospect of getting some return on their investments.  This was a business decision made which ultimately benefits us.   This sort of problem solving will not continue indefinitely.  The real problem is that we don’t know which parts will be unavailable tomorrow.  Our wheels are a good example of this.  Two years ago when our suppliers tried to order wheels they were told that they were no longer available.  Up until that point there was no indication that our wheels were not going to be produced anymore.  

The other issue is that SCCA is not equipped to provide long range plans for every class that runs under our banner. The Club Racing Board and the Board of Directors have an ever increasing number of classes to oversee and manage and frankly only two people on the Club Racing Board have competed in Formula Vee. 

The Club Racing Board has recognized this and authorized the formation of a FV ad hoc committee to discuss problems particular to our class. The competitors listed above have volunteered and are charged with the task to talk to other drivers in their respective areas, talk to suppliers, car builders and our engine builders and see if we can build a 10 year plan for Formula Vee to evolve and incorporate change in such a way as not to make currently running cars obsolete.  

Keith Pruden has agreed to set up this section of the Interchange as a tool for this committee to communicate with as many competitors as possible.  We are scheduled to meet every month to discuss our issues and findings. We will post here the topics of our discussion which will undoubtedly and hopefully generate interest. We would hope to be able to present in writing a 10 year outline for our class to the Club Racing Board by the end of 2004.  We ask that everyone keep in mind that we are competitors ourselves.  Our interest is in the preservation of Formula Vee as the most competitive and cost effective class in SCCA.  No one can assure the future of Formula Vee in the United States better than the drivers themselves.

Keith Pruden has now been replaced as the "owner" of this board by Rob Howden.
Let me take this opportunity as well to point out that a very few specific people have fronted significant amounts of money to support this class. A couple of examples are - *I* personally bought a front disk brake kit so that the Committee could look at it to help decide whether it might be a good idea for the class - I also donated a full test day and the hours that it took to install the kit on my car for testing. I also created, manage and fund the FV.US website. Bruce Livermore ordered a valves from different vendors a few years back when we had the 'intake valve scare'. Fred Clark has recently placed an order for the spindles mentioned in previous postings so that the Committee could actually SEE and make sure of the material construction etc. We are now negotiating with the guys in Australia to acquire a spec manifold or 2 to look at, test and compare with regards to whether they make sense for the class. It all costs $$money$$ to do those things. I placed a 'donate' link on the FV website (http://www.FormulaVee.us) almost a year ago now, to allow people to donate small amounts of money towards the furtherment of the class. To date, only 2 people have done so.

We (the Committee) have stopped short of supporting an "official" FV Association mostly based on the history of previous associations (the Committee has already lived longer than they). Their short life was due in most part by the required 'structure' of such an association - responsibility for managing, advertising, securing venues, securing sponsorship, etc falling to a VERY few overworked people. It would be nice if the Community could voluntarily contribute some $$ towards the FV cause to make life easier on us. Please consider sending along a few bucks And keep good ideas floating on this board.

Let's work together to keep this class going in a positive manner.

Steve

[jpetillo]

Steve - excellent. I appreciate the detailed response and the information it provided. John

[Matt King]

Was the aforementioned 10-year plan ever drafted?

[cendiv37]

Matt,

In a word no. Originally, Steve Oseth was thinking more along the lines of "evolving" the class to a more sustainable and possibly slightly more modern version of itself. For better or worse, the FV community has made it pretty clear that they are mostly interested in maintaining the status quo as long as possible. As a result the committee has put most of its efforts into finding replacement parts (pistons and cylinders come to mind) and tweaking the rules to allow more flexibility (non-VW intake valves, 4.5" wheels when we appeared about to run out of 4", etc.) mostly to try to alleviate parts availability pressures. We were asked to completely rewrite the FV rules to make them easier to read, understand and enforce.

We have looked seriously at disc brake packages (cost us a committee member...), tried to at least get SCCA to allow a volunteer to evaluate a spec. tire on track in real competition (SCCA said no) and a few other somewhat more "out there" ideas.

In the end, we have mostly just tried to keep the class alive as best we can. That is challenge enough since no matter what we do, there will be plenty of naysayers and second guessers that are opposed to it. All along we have tried to get as much input from the community as we can and do their bidding. This is very difficult, because the class really is populated with a mostly "silent majority". But we keep trying

[brian]

I for one would like to thank the committee and appreciate the "no win" status that you find yourself in. Hopefully, SCCA will develop the class oriented communiction system and provide more accurate direction for the committee. I enjoy this forum and visit daily, but it does not really accurately represent the majority of the class.