FasTrack FV Final Manifold Rules Proposal

[FVartist]

Bruce,

Your facts have no bearing on our argument. You are stating that a rule change, from '96 to '97, that was more specific in where to measure was the cause of our current problem. That must be your use of " If in doubt, don't ". I agree, but it has nothing to do with the argument. It is not clear to me since I see it as more of, where, rather of method. That a go/ no-go as opposed to an averaging method of measurement is the argument. They are still using averaging in both instances, so averaging was not the problem. Stating they use the no-go method at the Run-offs, where and how often something is inspected are superfluous.

Your arguments are confusing. You seem to go off on tangents that have no correlation to the debate. My examples : I do not have access to the info the committee has, since I have no idea who's manifold is at what dimension and by which constructor. How is it possible for me to have a bias? You infer that something hard, is hard to enforce, therefore is bad. I can not agree. Who is the arbiter you use to determine which method is hard or fair? Using the term "get over it" seems to provoke some angst. I see no reason to get personal.

My reasons are simple, I see they had no problem with averaging before, so why not keep it the same way. The method of averaging was the manner presented by the manifold constructors at the runoffs last year.

Bruce F.

[cendiv37]

Your facts have no bearing on our argument. You are stating that a rule change, from '96 to '97, that was more specific in where to measure was the cause of our current problem.

A whole lot of mud slinging is being done on this thread accusing people of lying when the irrefutable facts show they are not lying. I was supplying the relevant facts that refute the assertion by another poster to this thread that there was no manifold rule change between 1996 to 1997 by quoting the changed passages from my copies of the relevant FCS's.

That must be your use of " If in doubt, don't ".

No my reference to the "If in Doubt, Don't" passage in the FV rules is a commentary on what I believe is a very uneven application of this principle by some vocal supporters of "the manifold makers proposal". Some manifold makers are being called the scourge of the class because they violated this principle (in the opinion of some) yet these same people are supporting a proposal to modify the rules to allow a smaller deviation of the same nature while they still claim the high moral ground. This is also what I meant when I said these proponents are supporting a rules change that follows the principle that "being a little pregnant is OK but a lot pregnant is not." You can't use the "If in Doubt. Don't" "rule" to support your argument if you are going to support it's violation in another instance or to a smaller degree.

I agree, but it has nothing to do with the argument. It is not clear to me since I see it as more of, where, rather of method. That a go/ no-go as opposed to an averaging method of measurement is the argument. They are still using averaging in both instances, so averaging was not the problem.

My point is that prior to 1997, an averaging method was used for the entire length of the "horizontal tube" but starting in 1997, the measurement of this area (and the bent area of the "down tube") was eliminated by the (above quoted) rules changes. Clearly the averaging method was not working in the bent areas of the manifold tubing for some reason. To re-institute the same method of measurement that was eliminated in 1997 seems foolhardy, especially when there are other, simpler measurement methods to gain control of the dimensions allowed in these bent areas. I would be much happier to argue the dimension number rather than the method of measurement. The point of this new set of limits is to gain control of an area that is currently out of control. Let's choose the best measurement method and then decide on the number to apply.

Stating they use the no-go method at the Run-offs, where and how often something is inspected are superfluous.

My point here is that averaging method currently specified for controlling the horizontal tube is in fact seldom applied in practice and a go no-go gauge is substituted due to it's speed and ease of use. And this is on the easy to measure portion of the manifold! Adding more measurements that require the use of an averaging method to parts of the manifold that cannot even be measured with the manifold installed is not going to provide much more control than we have now because only the Runoffs winner's manifold will be subject to the actual measurement process. The use of a no-go limit would allow nearly all manifolds to be easily and fairly completely evaluated at least in Runoffs tech.

Your arguments are confusing. You seem to go off on tangents that have no correlation to the debate. My examples : I do not have access to the info the committee has, since I have no idea who's manifold is at what dimension and by which constructor. How is it possible for me to have a bias?

I previously posted links to all the data without including information as to who made which manifold here: http://www.formulavee.org/interchange/v ... =15&t=3811 We had agreed from the start that the data would not be linked publicly to the owners or makers. Yes, I know which manifolds were made by whom and who is promoting what dimensions and you don't. Sadly that is part of what has me so fired up and unhappy about how this has been handled. There will be clear winners and losers among owners of recently made manifolds and the is a very high correlation between who is most actively promoting the proposed numbers and which manifold maker's customers will be least effected. It's pure politics (and would do Washington proud) but it makes me very, very unhappy and just a bit feisty. That said, if you just look at the data without knowing who made which manifolds or who owns them you can see what effect various limits would have on how many manifolds would become illegal. Given a goal of making no more than 15% of the manifold illegal leads to an unbiased choice of dimension. Change that goal to 25% or 5% and you get different but unbiased answers. You can also look at the histograms for "knees" and or "tails" in the data which would usually show where the outliers start to separate themselves from the more typical manifolds. These transition points might help define where to set the limits. I wish this kind of analysis was how the recommended limits had been determined by the manifold makers. Instead, they looked at their most recent manifolds and suggested a set of rules that would keep them legal. Oh, by the way, one prominent manifold maker who was present at the Runoffs was excluded from these discussions...

You infer that something hard, is hard to enforce, therefore is bad. I can not agree. Who is the arbiter you use to determine which method is hard or fair?

There are some things that are just inherently hard to measure and enforce on a race car (like internal engine component weights or measurements). In my opinion, this is different. We CAN make a rule that will be easy to enforce if we choose to. As I stated above, the more difficult and time consuming it is to assure compliance by actual measurement, the less often compliance will actually be checked. We have an opportunity to move to a new, easier to enforce measurement in an area that has for 13 years had no limit. Why wouldn't we do so?

Using the term "get over it" seems to provoke some angst. I see no reason to get personal.

Maybe that was a bit harsh. My point is that some people seem to be terribly worried about a few people who might be effected by the difference between using a no-go vs. an averaging method on some manifolds yet they seem unconcerned about the many who will be adversely effected by the new rule, independent of whether the enforcement is by averaging or by go no-go. To me this implies and agenda and a bias, but maybe I'm wrong.

My reasons are simple, I see they had no problem with averaging before, so why not keep it the same way.

I disagree. They stopped measuring (via an averaging method) in the bends because they were having problems with it. I believe we will have many of the same problems today if we re-institute that method.

The method of averaging was the manner presented by the manifold constructors at the runoffs last year.

Actually, the bend measurement method was not decided, though options were discussed. I posted the minutes of that meeting back in October 2009 http://www.formulavee.org/interchange/v ... =15&t=3436 and there were no complaints at that time that I had left anything out or distorted the facts. The only edit that I've made was to emphasize the section stating that any rules change had to wait until 2011 because of the timing of the SCCA rules making process. Also, the only room wide "voice vote" was on Lisa's proposal to leave FV "as is" Section B, Item 4 in the minutes. There was no room wide "voice vote" to accept the manifold makers proposal which, as the notes clearly show, was not yet fully developed.

[problemchild]

The Facts?
There was some rule change in the nineties. We have yet to see any documentation as to why. No names. No first hand accounts. What we do know is they specified places to measure. Perhaps it was to make production easier or more profitable for an engine builder. That is all speculation. We are being told 3rd hand accounts by biased people with an agenda. Totally irrelevent! Bruce's interpretation of the 2009 Runoffs meeting is different than any other accounts that I have heard. (Minutes are just 1 person's summary). That is after 8 monthes. To consider 3rd hand conjectures fronm 13 years ago as facts is absurd. This whole historic discussion is irrelevent.

Politics?
I respect the committee's rights to offer their opinions as individuals. I respect their commitment to acting as a liason between the FV community and SCCA. I donated to their paypal account and submitted manifold data. I was even willing to listen to spec manifold info until it became evident that resistance was overwhelming. I am totally offended that they held a conference call meeting with the only agenda item "to organize their political response to Gary's cut-n-paste suggestion". This is not an Iranian election. This is supposed to be FV people voting for rule proposals. The whole purpose is for people to care enough to vote with enough support to get things done. The committee has been unable to gather that support on any other proposal to date. Now they are interfering with a free vote from the FV community. That is just plain wrong! I suggest that after you vote on this manifold issue, you complain to your director or SCCA officials that you know. I have sent a letter to the BOD complaining about the Adhoc committee activities. It is a complete misuse of power. No rebuttal or explanation is necassary as this is my opinion.

The Issue?
Nobody has explained to us how we are supposed to keep the manifold round. I don't care about 1997 or even about 2009 for that matter. We have a rule proposal that depends on my manifold retaining its shape from production, initial use, extended use, and even abuse. It has wall thickness of less than 1/16th of an inch. The committee, CRB, and manifold makers have agreed on the basic spec so all those tangents about whose manifold, motives, politics, etc is irrelevent..

The technical experts say that averaging values is necassary. The committee says it is not. I understand that the manifold makers want to build manifolds to rules that absorb the irregularities that occur naturally when the manifold is used. That seems reasonable. If you only look at the measuring aspect of this discussion ..... there is no bias or politics involved. It is the production dept vs the marketing dept. In the real world, when the marketing dept overides the production dept, we get inferior products that cost more!

[cendiv37]

Greg,

I wish our manifolds were 1/16" thick. Then there would be no distortion issues. Sadly, after ball sizing and acid etching the stock VW part, it is closer to .020" thick in many cases. The Aussi spec. manifold was 1/16" thick and it felt like you could have driven a truck over it and still bolted it to the heads.

There is an easy way to stay away from the 1.070" no-go limit: don't shoot for 1.070" average OD when ball sizing. Give yourself a little room. The data we collected seemed to suggest that about .020" would do the job which is why we recommended 1.1" no-go as equivalent to 1.080" average. If you have recently made and sold a bunch of manifolds that won't meet the new limits, deal with it like the other manifold makers are going to have to do. Stop whining. One good thing about the 1.070" (vs. 1.1" no-go limit is that it allows us to take out the 1.050" restriction above the flange without much concern. This will reduce manifold manufacturing costs and ease repairs.

When have I actually told anyone how to vote? I try very hard to support my position and then encourage people to vote their conscience for what they believe is best for the class. I admit I am a little put off when someone else tries to tell people exactly how to vote and supplies them with a cut and paste solution so they don't have to think for themselves.

Yes my notes are my notes, but I did my honest best at the time to document the proceedings without bias. I state again that at the time no one complained that I had distorted any of the facts or left anything out. Believe me, I would have much rather let SCCA take the notes and been able to fully participate in the meeting, but as soon as I put pen to paper (for my own recollection), I was nominated and the SCCA scribe left. There were often multiple meetings within the main meeting going on, and within one of those sub-meetings, maybe everyone nodded agreement that we "should just accept the manifold makers recommendations". But the overall manifold maker proposal was never brought to a meeting wide vote. Again, as the minutes point out, there were a number of their recommended measurements that were just swags at the time and needed to be researched to see how real manifolds measured. That is what led to the manifold data collection process and the committee's subsequent recommendations based on that collected data. It seems that some want to believe the data when it supports their position but deny it when it does not.

[FVartist]

Bruce,

Please read what I actually wrote. I thought I was having a civil debate.

Bruce F.

[cendiv37]

Dear Bruce F.,

I spent 2 hours late last night reading and rereading what you "actually wrote" to try to understand what you were driving at then to respond in a civil, point by point manner. I believe I did so.

I'm done with this and cede the last word to others.

Please, FV drivers, vote your conscience as you see it, but vote.

[sabre1]

I'll add my 2 cents to this.

First I want to thank the committee for all their efforts on OUR behalf. Bruce put a lot of time and effort into that spreadsheet.

There are many points to consider here and I would encourage everyone that has a manifold to go measure it and see for themselves how they might be affected by this rule proposal - and then send your reply to the CRB.

To properly measure a manifold using either method WILL require removal from the engine.

The averaging method does have some drawbacks as already mentioned. What I haven't seen is the point that the proposed rule change does NOT say that the measurements be taken at 90 degrees to each other. So, if you have an oval shape, and the measurements aren't taken at 90 degree increments, there will be NOT be an accurate average of the actual dimensions.

I personally think that there MAY be a benefit to the ovallized bends, but have no back to back flow test or dyno data to prove this. I expect that someone out there does - care to share?

-Jim

[problemchild]

Reportedly, Gary's passionate call for the people to speak up has been successful.

FV

1. (Multiple) FV Manifold Rules Change

The CRB has modified the published rule change for FV manifolds to average the measurements of the curved section and

has sent the proposal to the BoD for approval.

The CRB wishes to thank all the members who wrote regarding this proposed rule change. We received more letters on this

issue than we ever have on any other.


The people have been heard. Hopefully this sad time in the history of FV is over and people can buy or update their last intake manifold.

Thanks Gary!

[wroché29]

Week done indeed, Gary. No small effort on your part.