My letter about the FV spec intake

[Erik Oseth]

Committee members\Club Members

On the FV spec intake I know we can make one that will cost around $400.00 US and match the power of the best ones we have out there or whatever power level you all see fit.There is no reason not to do it other than personal agendas that particular people have within the class.Whether it is selling engines making manifolds or prepping cars .

Under the current guideline myself and over 30 others will have non compliant intakes at the end of this year.I for one am tired of feeling the need to buy a $1000-1500 intake every 12-16 months .I could spend that on tires ,travel or entry's. In a time where cash is tight for everyone it will not serve anyone well to spend our racing budget on nonsense like updating intakes constantly.Also this will let everyone have a good intake because we all know Brad has Nobles best, Steve O has Mike K's best, Mike V has Hardings best and so on.Now we can all have something within .5% of the next guy.

With the new production techniques we have today there is no reason to be concerned about a .5% flow standard.Everyone I have heard protest that this cant be done is A not in the industry and B has no proof they just dont want to give up a perceived advantage.

The manifold I obtained for you all to look at and test was never here for a HP comparison and anyone that assumed that was very wrong.My intention was to see what they had made and how it would fit our cars then how we could implement there idea for our use.That is all, from that point we could pick a tubing diameter and make our own part.No restrictors ,no carb mods ,no additional head work necessary.Anyone claiming that you need a new carb or head is just blowing smoke to sell more intakes\engine parts they have no data , no experience and certainly no proof.

You all have a chance to do something very good here for the future of our class.It will be a shame if the original idea is ruined because everyone wants to twist the rule or scuttle the ship for there own benifit .It is a very simple thing that is being made over complicated by people who dont want to lose income an have no data to support there claims of additional work necessary.

All that said lets not ruin a great thing for the many buget racers in our class so that the few can continue to polute the class with border line intakes that the average Joe cant get. I myself have changed intakes 3 times in the last 3 years in an effort to keep up. I could have done another 6 race weekends had I not felt it was a must have part to buy. If we keep going in this direction I will change classes and you all will continue to push more young drivers out of your class and into more cost effective classes with cars that have new technology and appel to the younger generation( a Formula F with a honda is cheaper to run now -crash damage) .I truly beleve this is the first of many steps we need to take to keep this class growing in our country.



Erik Oseth
Quicksilver RacEngines
FV #66
SCCA member # 268077

[brian]

Very good post Eric. While your company cannot be considered exactly impartial, your knowledge is well respected. That said, everything I have learned about induction research stresses that it is a system and not a group of individual components. To say that changing manifolds will not effect carbs, heads and even jetting is a bit naive. Naive, unless Quicksilver becomes the chosen vendor like it has been with the Vetec or Fit engines. I have no problem with a spec manifold but I do have 3 caveats. 1. That it not be required. Let the folks run what the brung. ; 2. If it is measurably better than existing manifolds, a restirctor plate must be used. and 3rd. If there is an exclusive vendor for the manifold, that it not be an engine builder. What we don't need is someone cherry picking manifolds out of an inventory for their friends and customers.

[Erik Oseth]

I agree on almost all fronts. The great thing about the spec intake is it will work just the same as the ones we use now , only it will be the same every single time.If we size\shape it to the current manifolds there is a non issue, no need for a restrictor. No need for everyone not to have to use it at the Nat championship 2 years down the road because we are racing cars here not intakes.Spend your $4-450.00 and see if you drive as good as the guy you line up next to. I think your right about the vendors. It should be sold by the manufacturer to the racer maybe even 1 per club member and a 2nd can only be purchased when you return the first one in broken condition.

Erik

[hardingfv32-1]

There is absolutely no variable test data available to prove that a $400 manifold will get the job done. I have every right to claim that it will be more like $800.

First, we have no data or consensus about what we need other than the normal "must be FV cheap". How equal do the competitor want the manifolds to be? A regional competitor might be happy with a $400 +/- .5 hp unit (1hp best to worse) but a national competitor is going to be more demanding willing to spend $800 for a +/- .2-.3 hp tolerance. History shows the greatest amount of sales is going to be with the National competitors so what is going to happen to the cheap criteria?

Bring the Australian manifold into the country has not helped answer any of the many questions that surround this complex subject. That manifold was a primitive piece. The center was a casting and the bends were fabricated from U-bends. A complete PR exercise.

If you want to prove that this idea has merit you are going to have to make at least 10 units to verify product accuracy and have them flowed by an instrument calibration test laboratory. None of this is going to be cheap, especially for the FV crowd. Maybe the pro spec manifold types can group together to prove their point. Up to this point it has just been talk.

Brian

[Erik Oseth]

I would say you are wrong and ask you to prove how you came up with that $800.00 figure.That is a far cry from what is real.After consulting numerous sourses 4-450 is a high ball number for 2-300 units.I guess if 10 units is what the CRB needs then thats what would be done. Maybe when it is up to you to organize the testing you can mandate that.

Untill then all that needs to be done is to get about 5 samples of various dia and start testing.Write the rule submit it and count the votes.

I should add to Brian at the end of next year every intake you built in the last 12 months will be illegal incuding Mike's.So that being said I am only going to buy 1 more intake for the rest of my life.If you guys want to keep at it you have deeper pockets than me.

E

There is absolutely no variable test data available to prove that a $400 manifold will get the job done. I have every right to claim that it will be more like $800.

First, we have no data or consensus about what we need other than the normal "must be FV cheap". How equal do the competitor want the manifolds to be? A regional competitor might be happy with a $400 +/- .5 hp unit (1hp best to worse) but a national competitor is going to be more demanding willing to spend $800 for a +/- .2-.3 hp tolerance. History shows the greatest amount of sales is going to be with the National competitors so what is going to happen to the cheap criteria?

Bring the Australian manifold into the country has not helped answer any of the many questions that surround this complex subject. That manifold was a primitive piece. The center was a casting and the bends were fabricated from U-bends. A complete PR exercise.

If you want to prove that this idea has merit you are going to have to make at least 10 units to verify product accuracy and have them flowed by an instrument calibration test laboratory. None of this is going to be cheap, especially for the FV crowd. Maybe the pro spec manifold types can group together to prove their point. Up to this point it has just been talk.

Brian

[hardingfv32-1]

Of coarse you are going to say I'm wrong. You have a number of sources making quotes to what specifications? Match the primitive piece from Australia? My proposed $800 is just as valid as your dreams of $400. At this point with the very limited info available NO one has any idea what is possible. Saying you talked to someone who has no previous experience with such a vague proposed product is completely ludicrous.

Many of the competitors out there might think (or hope) this is a simple class, but the fact is that the level of sophistication is proportional to how competitive you want to be. This manifold subject is complex and requires good decisions based on sound science and facts. To this point the FV community has been provided with little of either with regard to the manifold rules in general or a spec manifold.

The performance level (size) of the manifold is just one of many criteria that have to be agreed to before you get to far down the road. The intelligent approach would to form a committee to resolve these details before any price estimates are bantered about.

Very few competitors have changed manifolds in the last year or two. Why would that be the case if there is really such a big discrepancy in performance? Most of my customers had junk manifolds and needed something to get into the ball game. Does everyone really needs a new manifold? Or are some unhappy having the playing field being leveled?

Brian

[Erik Oseth]

On the contrary Brian we are going to duplicate a top nat intake not that aussie part.If you dont know what is going on how can you argue a point??Please dont post misinformation.


Erik

[Speedsport]

Erik,

It would be best for me to sit out of these discussions, as obivously it's easy to use me as a target. I have no idea why I keep being used as an example, since just because I won the runoffs does not mean I have the best manifold. If I do, protecting its use doesn't really mean much too me as I have gone years with seeing other customers' manifolds on our dyno way bigger then what I had, which means others can and probably do have just as good of a manifold as I have. My speaking out about this subject is because I really don't think the spec manifold is a good solution for our class and many others who I've spoken to but don't post feel the same. I really want to see our class thrive, but I don't see this as a means to that end.

I think there are too many things that can go wrong to risk it. I see no problem with placing new restrictions on current manifolds. That is a current possiblity, and the dimensions are unknown at this point. To say all of someone's manifolds are going to be illegal in 12 months is misinformation since nothing has been determined yet.

If people would put as much effort into recruiting new people as they have put into this manifold debate, we probably would have a few more guys in FV right now, which would make the racing better for all.

In repsonse to Brian's comment, I too agree that there are plenty of people willing to pay $800 for a manifold that produces .3 more HP. That's how we got to this point in the first place! If there wasn't a market for $1000 manifolds, this would all go away. To think that market is going to disappear because the manifold is spec is foolish. The $450 spec manifolds will be selling to $1000 in a couple of years. Why won't they be? It will start small, say $50. Are you saying you won't pay $500 for a spec manifold that's at the top end of the range versus $450 for a random one? Then sooner or later $550 doesn't seem so bad, then $600, ect...

[cendiv37]

At this point with the very limited info available NO one has any idea what is possible.Brian

So instead of discussing it rationally, lets dismiss the spec manifold out of hand, or based on the loudly and repeatedly proclaimed opinions of those with the most to lose if the game is changed?

This manifold subject is complex and requires good decisions based on sound science and facts.Brian

Working on it...

Most of my customers had junk manifolds and needed something to get into the ball game.Brian

Why did they have "junk manifolds"? I would have thought that our perfect current system of manifold procurement would have made sure that everyone had access to a good manifold?

Or are some unhappy having the playing field being leveled?Brian

I'd say one's perspective on this probably depends on where one stands on the playing field today.

You seem to have just said that the playing field wasn't level until you got into the fray... Maybe you changed the level, but to say you leveled it is a bit brash and negates every advertisement you have ever made on this forum. To say that the field will become level if we just maintain the status quo directly contradicts your proclamation that it has never been level and never will be ("that's part of the game we play so get used to it"). To say that a modern, purpose built, CNC fabricated piece that is tested and certified to a performance level will somehow level the playing field LESS than does the current system of manifold "fabrication" and sourcing is preposterous.

To say the Aussie part is "crude" compared our elaborately contorted towel racks is like saying that an M1 tank is crude compared to a hopped up Pinto. It was described by those who saw it as "a very nice piece", even by those that don't want us to go down that road. Yes, it can be improved upon both to reduce costs and to improve consistency. It does incorporate some very clever ideas that could help us design an even better mouse trap IF WE CHOOSE TO!

The Aussie part has given us ONE point of reference from which to depart on the exercise of determining what's possible. We need to try out a few versions to see what works. Then we need to move forward IF it looks promising. What performance level we would prefer (as a class) is yet to be determined. Some say bump it up a notch, some say match the present best of the best. Do we want more bottom end torque or do we want more top end hp (either might be possible, but maybe not at the same time). I will state that I believe trying to run a spec. manifold side by side with the current manifolds (except for a very short transition period - at least at the National level) is THE best way to make the spec. manifold concept fail.

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks." William Shakespeare

[hardingfv32-1]

I do not post misinformation! I'm simply stating what is possible in my opinion from what little is know on this subject. Since no one is answering any of the difficult technical questions being asked by myself and others, I'm going to assume you don't know what is going on either or you are hiding something. Which is it?

I'm trying to discuss this rationally. I question what criteria you guys are using and all I get is the run around. There is no opinion involved in asking for the facts.

As an example: it was stated that "we are going to duplicate a top nat intake". What specification is this referring to? Who's top nat manifold? 2010 or 2011 spec? You guys haven't a clue and you what use to believe that the fabricator doing the "estimate" does?

Based on the total lack of statistical info and facts provided on the manifold subject to this point, it would seem that all the manifold hysteria is based on my advertising! Now that is a smart way to make rules.

Are we going to set the performance level, etc. of the new spec manifold with the same political ineptness as has been exhibited to date?

Brian

[Erik Oseth]

When you say that the intakes would be $800.00 that is misinformation thank you and dose nothing but pollute what could be a very great idea.What is going on is that every year you and the others make a better intake that most everyone feels the need to buy and I hope those days are over now.With the new 2011 rule coming that means if we dont do something you and the others will more than likely sell 2-3 intakes per nat car in the next 3 years while you sort out the dimensions .

So myself and a few others would like to see who is interested in a spec intake.Alot of research has been done up to this point witch also dose not need to be posted for you to try to use as ammo if it was all done then it would be made public I'm sure. You can write your letter when the rule comes out. You get one vote like us all.

There is no need to disclose who's equipment we will use for a baseline nor should it be relevant if everyone has to use it then it wont matter as long as it is a good intake and I think we can figure that out without you.You may see this as a witch hunt and if that makes you feel big then good but this is not the place to stroke your ego and the class is more important than you personal feelings.As for the rules year spec that is up for discussion I would imagine it would be the 2011 spec but I am not king(altho you or I could write a rule today and send it in to be voted on).Just because your not in the loop of info because you separate yourself with your comments here dosent mean that the rule isn't needed\wanted by the majority.

I will be happy to tell you what I know if you would like to call me I need to get to work.

E

I do not post misinformation! I'm simply stating what is possible in my opinion from what little is know on this subject. Since no one is answering any of the difficult technical questions being asked by myself and others, I'm going to assume you don't know what is going on either or you are hiding something. Which is it?

I'm trying to discuss this rationally. I question what criteria you guys are using and all I get is the run around. There is no opinion involved in asking for the facts.

As an example: it was stated that "we are going to duplicate a top nat intake". What specification is this referring to? Who's top nat manifold? 2010 or 2011 spec? You guys haven't a clue and you what use to believe that the fabricator doing the "estimate" does?

Based on the total lack of statistical info and facts provided on the manifold subject to this point, it would seem that all the manifold hysteria is based on my advertising! Now that is a smart way to make rules.

Are we going to set the performance level, etc. of the new spec manifold with the same political ineptness as has been exhibited to date?

Brian

[Speedsport]

Erik,

Some of what Brian says does have merit. There are too many unanswered questions right now about the spec manifold. Some of the questions I would like to see answered:

1) Who will pay for the initial run of 300-400 manifolds to ensure the quoted price.

2) What happens when those run out and we need more? Will someone put the money up front for another batch or will it be a smaller batch but more costly?

3) Who will distribute them?

4) What test equipment will be used to verify it falls within the required specs?

5) What range will be accepted?

6) Who pays for the ones outside of the range to be discarded?

7) How repeatable is the test equipment?

What happens if they meet the flow criteria, but we find out they have a larger range on the dyno?

9) What will keep engine builders from buying a large lot of them for all their customers and sorting them?

10) What will keep the cost of the top of the range manifolds the same as a random one?

I think these questions and others need to be answered before anyone can make a reasonable opinion on the spec manifold. To imply that your data or research does not need to be posted or isn't relevant is a little short sighted. That kind of imformation needs to be made public. The lack of information like this is why I can't support a spec manifold at this point.

[Bill Carroll]

I joined the FV ranks last year, would love to make it to runoff's one day and be competitive. Between now and then some things will most likely have to change. I submitted a question about this subject in the novice area last year and I think a lot of us were able to learn and understand a lot about why this topic is so important to a handful of FV drivers, engine, manifold and parts people. We also understand that a change could affect a lot more of us. National guys, will have what the rules say and the best they can find, regional guys will be split, most having what they get with a car or engine, vintage guys are glad when it starts every time. I would like to run the manifold I have until I am good enough to win at regionals and run Nationals. If I do become good enough I would gladly buy a $400+/- manifold if it means that I don't get passed by the guy with $$$ in his car giving him extra HP ( or at least make it close enough to outdrive him if I have a good car and I'm a better driver). This attempt by Erik might be a great solution for most of us. I do think an accurate and independent test should be submitted along with the projected cost(publish quotes or estimates) to all FV contacts. Of the thousands of FV's that have been built, we have access to hundreds of FV owners/drivers through this and a couple other Forums, and the FV registry.

I suggest three things here:

1. Get some quality testing that shows us what the difference would really be (.5+/-?), along with costs.
2. Everyone has one vote.
3. Anyone who has a genuine interest, makes a living, etc., can identify who they are, what they do with FV and post their ideas and concern in one single post each, subject to a size limit, and on one common forum for all of us to read and make a decision.

Set a time limit and collect the votes.

I hope my two cents here is appropriate,
Thanks,
Bill Carroll 74 D-13

[Erik Oseth]

I cannot answer all these myself as I am not king of FV. I can answer what I do know.

1 the manufacture would pay that is the beauty of using a large company to do it .They would float the cost

2 the same company would make another run

3 the manufacture or SCCA direct to the racer

4 to be determined I am sure it would need to be a 3rd party test and then go to all the builders or most anyway

5 that is up to the CRB\BOD

6 the manufacture

7 mine is perfect IDK about others stuska 400 with CDS data and custom flow bench

8 then a change would need to be made thats why we have prototypes

9 to be discussed to many ideas to put here now but that is a concern I think only members with a FV log book # should be able to get one and only 1 per car

10 well when you call an order one you get what you get they would all be the same price and my thought is to make sure they make as or more than what we have now. Not sure I understood you question tho

these are only my idea's\ thought not that of the group.

Maybe if you offerd some input instead of trying to rip it apart you may have someone your own age to race with one day.

E

Erik,

Some of what Brian says does have merit. There are too many unanswered questions right now about the spec manifold. Some of the questions I would like to see answered:

1) Who will pay for the initial run of 300-400 manifolds to ensure the quoted price.

2) What happens when those run out and we need more? Will someone put the money up front for another batch or will it be a smaller batch but more costly?

3) Who will distribute them?

4) What test equipment will be used to verify it falls within the required specs?

5) What range will be accepted?

6) Who pays for the ones outside of the range to be discarded?

7) How repeatable is the test equipment?

What happens if they meet the flow criteria, but we find out they have a larger range on the dyno?

9) What will keep engine builders from buying a large lot of them for all their customers and sorting them?

10) What will keep the cost of the top of the range manifolds the same as a random one?

I think these questions and others need to be answered before anyone can make a reasonable opinion on the spec manifold. To imply that your data or research does not need to be posted or isn't relevant is a little short sighted. That kind of imformation needs to be made public. The lack of information like this is why I can't support a spec manifold at this point.

[Speedsport]

2 the same company would make another run

Yes, but after the initial run, demand is going to drop. So the next run might only be 50 pieces. What is the cost then?

7 mine is perfect IDK about others stuska 400 with CDS data and custom flow bench

Statements like this are exactly why I can't support this idea. No one has perfect test equipment, and the danger is people thinking they do. Your flow bench is not "perfect". I've done enough testing to know just how difficult it is to get repeatable results with .5%.

9 to be discussed to many ideas to put here now but that is a concern I think only members with a FV log book # should be able to get one and only 1 per car

No way am I going to travel 2000 miles to a race without a spare manifold. Limiting everyone to one manifold is not a good idea. Putting a limit on the number of manifolds a person can own is a sure fire way to drive the black market cost up for the manifolds at the top of the range.

10 well when you call an order one you get what you get they would all be the same price and my thought is to make sure they make as or more than what we have now. Not sure I understood you question tho

So people won't be allowed to re-sell them? So everytime someone buys a new car or a new engine they will have to buy a new manifold from the supplier? It's the re-sale from person to person that will drive the cost up. See above.

Maybe if you offerd some input instead of trying to rip it apart you may have someone your own age to race with one day

I am offering input. It's just not in favor of your idea so I suppose it doesn't count?

You feel very strongly about using a spec manifold because you think some people have an advantage or that manifolds are too expensive. But you don't have a problem buying a carbon fiber body for your car? Doesn't that give you an advantage that others can't get? What's the difference?

A spec manifod is being touted as the saving grace to our class. Where is the data that shows how the participation would increase with one? As I've mentioned before, people will always find an excuse not to race. People quit racing Spec Racers all the time. Using a spec manifold is a major direction shift in our class, as we are a "restricted" class, not a spec class. At this point, there are too many questions for me to support such a major attitude shift in our rules.

[Matt King]

Most of these questions and concerns would become moot if the concept of a spec manifold was changed to an alternate manifold. Make it as good as or a hair better than the curent crop of state of the art manifolds and sell it for $450. Buy as many spares as you want. Don't buy anything if you don't want. But let the 90 percent buy a manifold equal in performance to what the 10 percent currently have for a fraction of the price.

[FV80]

Most of these questions and concerns would become moot if the concept of a spec manifold was changed to an alternate manifold. Make it as good as or a hair better than the curent crop of state of the art manifolds and sell it for $450. Buy as many spares as you want. Don't buy anything if you don't want. But let the 90 percent buy a manifold equal in performance to what the 10 percent currently have for a fraction of the price.

THAT would be the goal. The reason the Committee hasn't provided ANSWERS to so many questions is because we don't KNOW all the answers. The whole idea of this thing was that the COMMITTEE would do 'due diligence research' - see what could be done - see what it might cost - hack together some information and probably some options and THEN provide the Community with those answers so that they could make an (somewhat) educated decision. Maybe we DON'T need a Spec manifold - but way more than half the respondents think we should at least consider it. Maybe it really won't work ... maybe we really can't build and sell them for what we think... maybe this... maybe that... maybe something else. The Committee research is IN PROGRESS - nothing more. We don't yet KNOW ... can't you cut us some slack?? (while remembering that we are ALL *ACTIVE* *National* (or at least we think we are) caliber FV racers with a vested interest in the success of the class). There is SO MUCH CRAP out there saying that we are only in this for ourselves! What POSSIBLE interest could we have in making ourselves totally successful in a class that doesn't EXIST!!??? We LIKE this class!! And want it to survive and grow - and have spent, and continue to spend, countless hours towards that goal.

*WHEN* - we have some reasonable data - *WHEN* we have located a promising vendor - *WHEN* we can have a few prototypes made and tested .. etc, etc. etc. We *WILL* provide the info.... or *WHEN* the significant majority of the people who care enough to respond to requests for input say "NO - we would rather stay the course with VW manifolds". Providing 'partial data' simply provides no purpose at this point (except more fodder for forum arguments). The Committee has attempted to make the GOALS of a spec manifold very clear. The naysayers have done nothing except 'cry wolf' where there IS NO WOLF. BTW- I am anticipating that the cost of this prototype endeavor might be in the neighborhood of $2000 or so. It would be nice if a few more of you would drop by the FV website and DONATE http://www.formulaveeusa.org/Donate.htm a few bucks towards that goal. To date, donations are woefully short for that sort of thing. The Committee has fronted *ALL* of the costs to date of EVERYTHING that the Committee has investigated or been a party to. Maybe another 5 or 6 of you would like to get together and try to decide if anything NEEDS to be addressed for the good of the class. Then THIS Committee could go back to spending our time preparing our cars....

Steve, FV80

[FVartist]

I have a curious question. Has there been a manifold rule change approved by someone that goes into effect at the end of this year the FV community knows nothing about? I would like to know how this could be? I have seen no mention in any Fastrack relating to a manifold rule change. I thought we were still in a discussion stage. I mention this because there have been statements intimating so.

Bruce

[Erik Oseth]

After looking over some data from the last 3 weeks I can say that my bench has been less than 1%on av .7%. I dont have all the answers .At this point I am waiting to see what the commity writes to determine if I want to write my own rule and send it in.

I was asked to post my letter here after I wrote it and sent it to the commity.Your input counts one time just like mine.An if we all dont do something with these and other costs soon all the guys you race with are going to be trailering there cars from nursing homes in 10 years.What will you do then?We start fixing stuff now and have a class here in 5-10 years or just start boxing up all this junk now and sell it cause your speedsport will only be good for a hill climb by then maybe worth 5 grand.

BTW the body on my car was the cheepest way for me to go thanks to a barder situation and a good friend.

Thanks for you concern

Erik

E

7 mine is perfect IDK about others stuska 400 with CDS data and custom flow bench

Statements like this are exactly why I can't support this idea. No one has perfect test equipment, and the danger is people thinking they do. Your flow bench is not "perfect". I've done enough testing to know just how difficult it is to get repeatable results with .5%.


I am offering input. It's just not in favor of your idea so I suppose it doesn't count?

You feel very strongly about using a spec manifold because you think some people have an advantage or that manifolds are too expensive. But you don't have a problem buying a carbon fiber body for your car? Doesn't that give you an advantage that others can't get? What's the difference?

A spec manifod is being touted as the saving grace to our class. Where is the data that shows how the participation would increase with one? As I've mentioned before, people will always find an excuse not to race. People quit racing Spec Racers all the time. Using a spec manifold is a major direction shift in our class, as we are a "restricted" class, not a spec class. At this point, there are too many questions for me to support such a major attitude shift in our rules.

[FVartist]

Eric,

Why and who asked you to post your letter? I am not in agreement with the spec manifold and as of yet have not been dissuaded nor do I consider any of your reasons sound enough for me to change my stance. I was not asked to post my opinion, nor was I given a conformation of my vote being accepted. Anyone else for or against asked to do so?

Bruce

[cendiv37]

Bruce,

You don't seem to need any prodding to post your opinion

I admit to suggesting to Eric that he post his letter when we talked recently on the phone. As Steve Davis has stated, the off-line input to the committee has been quite strongly in favor of continuing our research/evaluation of a spec. manifold. I have also gotten a fair amount of additional off-line support for the spec. manifold investigation from people that don't want to rock the boat in public. This general sentiment doesn't seem to be supported by reading most of the posts on this board. I thought an alternative view might be refreshing

Of course I've also received an earful off-line from those opposed

Erik hesitated to post his letter knowing that he would be stepping into a hornets nest by doing so. He knew he would have to defend himself and while quite motivated about the subject, worried that he wouldn't have the time to respond adequately to the predictable outcry from certain parties. I felt his perspective was especially relevant since he has seen lots of manifolds on his dyno and flow bench. He has watched the progression over the last couple years and is concerned about it's long term effect on the class.

In the end, I just wish we could all discuss this rationally rather than throwing stones and claiming the sky is falling one way or the other.

Is the current cost of manifolds a good thing or bad for *the class*? What are the pros and cons of $1000 manifolds *on the class* (try to ignore the effect on your personal competiveness and pocketbook)?

How important to the success of *the class* is cost effectiveness - (bang for the buck, real and perceived)?

Is the class focus to be technical development or stability?
Do we *as a class* want SCCA to more tightly enforce rule: 9.1.1.C.1.B (the "If in Doubt Don't" rule)? Amongst other things, this seems to be at the heart of some of the "angst" this whole manifold issue has raised.

These are the questions at the heart of the manifold controversy. These are the ones we need to discuss but always seem distracted from in any discussion.

[RickyBobby]

To all in the FV Community - Ask youselves this question:

What do a parachute and your mind have in common?

Answer - They both have to be open to be effective!!!!!

We can "what if" our selves to death for absolutely no reason. The generosity of those who have taken on the recon task, I can assure you, have your best interest at heart, and have nothing to gain financially or politically by all of this. Let's give these great guys a chance to provide us with their carefully thoughtout, meticulous findings first. Then the debate can start.

Thanks for listening.

[FVartist]

Bruce,

AKA Cendiv37 check PM

Bruce

[Veefan]

As Steve Davis has stated, the off-line input to the committee has been quite strongly in favor of continuing our research/evaluation of a spec. manifold.

Are we researching/evaluating and possibly going to go with a Spec Manifold based on off line input??? I really find it curious that most of the posts on this forum, not including committee members do not seem in favor of a spec manifold, or they have serious concerns.

I’m also curious as to why if the Spec Manifold has so much off-line, non vocal majority support… non of them has been giving FINANCIAL support to the idea?

FV80 To date, donations are woefully short for that sort of thing.

[Speedsport]

After looking over some data from the last 3 weeks I can say that my bench has been less than 1%on av .7%.

That's why I have doubts about how well these can be controlled. If the test equipment is only repeatable within 1%, and the manifolds are only good for 1%, there can be a 2% range in "accepted" flow numbers. 2% of a typical FV engine is 1.25HP. I have yet to see that big of a spread in current manifolds taken from the same era. Meaning if I checked 10 Kochanski manifolds on my dyno, I would not expect to see more then .5 HP difference between them. What that means is there is the potential for the spec manifold to have a greater spread then there is among the current manifolds, once everyone settles on accepted dimensions.

I admit to suggesting to Eric that he post his letter when we talked recently on the phone

Bruce, I appreciate the effort the committee has been putting into issues like this. But after our conversations, and suggestions like you made to Erik, I'm uncomfortable with committee members taking such a strong stance in one direction. The purpose of the committee should be to gather data so the rest of us can evaluate it. As Steve has pointed out and as I've mentioned there has not been enough data gathered for anyone to make an educated opinion on what is best for the class. I'm opposed to it because at this point, the data isn't there to support it. But you are obviously very pro-spec manifold, which is slightly conflicting with the goals of the committee. You asked Erik to post his comments, but have you asked anyone to post there reasons against it?

Some of the other committee members have been silent on their opinions, which is the best way to be at this point. They are not placing any influence on others.