Head and neck systems ... request for input

[FV80]

I've been catching up on my fastracks and found this too...

4. Driver safety equipment – The CRB would like input from the membership about whether head and neck restraints should
be made mandatory.

Please send your comments to crb@scca.com or write them.
Steve

[maurus97]

100% against the idea. Not to downplay saftey or trivialize anyone who has purchased and/or gotten whiplash in a FV but I think the cost to risk ratio for our class is a bit much.

[FV80]

100% against the idea. Not to downplay saftey or trivialize anyone who has purchased and/or gotten whiplash in a FV but I think the cost to risk ratio for our class is a bit much.

I agree - but don't just tell me/us - make SURE you send your comments to the CRB. Personally, I think the SCCA would be asking for trouble 'risk management' wise. Other sanctioning bodies (i.e. NASCAR and F1) have almost complete control of what the driver's seat "looks like" - the orientation, belt arrangement, etc. In SCCA, the possibilities are endless - and no doubt MANY of them will work peachy keen with a HANS or a ISAAC or whatever - equally, just as many won't work correctly with at least SOME of the available devices. To force any of us to use a specific one (or 'one OF ones') might very well force someone to end up quite unsafe is his own car - talk about a litigation opportunity - release or no (re: Mark Donohue case?).

VOICE your opinion ... please.
Steve

[shirleymac]

I feel the decision should be up to the driver to either use one or not. But as I put in my letter to the CRB, my opinion is that if they mandate a device all FIA and SFI devices should be available to use, and let the individual driver select the device that best works for their car.

After looking at the different devices at PRI I purchased a DefNder, I liked the adjustability over the other devices available.

[Martinracing98]

I do not think the SCCA should be in the business of protecting the individuals. Each individual should have the right to choose their own level of risk. That leaves what does mandated affect SCCA. It reduces the risk that the driver is exposed to which increases opportunity for participation. At the same time it increases cost that may reduce participation. In the end I think the balance is probably requiring HNR results in a net decrease of participation. The remaining part that is more difficult to guess is how does the one death or severe injury cause damage due to the court of public opinion. I do not know, but I still think not requiring HNR wins out.

By the way. I use a HANS

[Thomas Galuardi]

I did write the CRB. I used the risk versus cost issue and availability if all drivers needed one. However, I have written to the CRB many times and it doesn't seem to matter.

On another topic; what was the tabled issue of piston/piston ring about? I don't recall any mention of this before!

FV 20

[brian]

One letter was from me regarding pistons and ring lands. Some engine builders are using very expensive custom spacers to be able to run thinner rings. I thought it would make sense to have some freedom regarding the size of the ring lands on the pistons instead of spending hundreds of dollars on spacers. Since we can use after market pistions, maybe there would be a savings to have them made with smaller ring lands if the rule would allow it.

[FV80]

Brian,
Perhaps you should investigate the possibility with a piston mfr - actually PRICE it out for, say ... 50 and/or 100 sets and see how it REALLY compares. SCCA /MIGHT/ be more inclined to 'hear' you if you had some real factual data to back up your suggestion. It SOUNDS like a good idea to me, but I really have no idea what it would cost to have custom pistons mrf'd ... and I'm not really sure that doing that would solve the 'spacer' problem ... and a guess isn't going to do anyone any good .

steve

[SR Racing]

Actually it would be much cheaper to have custom rings and/or spacers made.

[problemchild]

Why not put in minimum ring width rules to freeze the technology to what is currently being used?

[SR Racing]

Why not put in minimum ring width rules to freeze the technology to what is currently being used?

A decent idea, but I think the cat is out of the bag. There are several engines out there running a thinner ring. Either a M/C ring and/or the C&A rings. Setting the rule now would require several engines to be rebuilt.

[problemchild]

This skinny ring deal is in it's infancy. NOW is the time to stop it.

Having a few guys (probably the elite guys that spend to be elite) pull heads and cylinders to re-ring now is absolutely preferable to having a "ring update" that brings everybody back to the "status quo" after spending significant $ to get "equal" again.

[brian]

I suggest folks write the CRB with their thoughts. Expecially if you still run 1200 vees. Not sure if it's fair for FFirst folks muddy the water. I priced custom pistons while at the PRI show and they are slightly less than the spacers being used by some. Our pistons are fairly vanilla and several companies expressed interest. I guess one can consider me an elite since I'm always trying to get more HP but it's mostly my time and not money. That's why I'm looking for a cost effective alternative to spacers. Every ring company has to make the spacers on a custom basis, so they are expensive. We have been running dykes rings with spacers for many many years and to ban them now is a bit late. Virtually every engine out there has spacers on the pistons.

[problemchild]

Brian, I own a FV. I just spent the last 4 hours working on it. My suggestion was to write a rule to stop the latest "new" trick. I never said anything about stopping the use of spacers, just writing a rule to restrict the "latest" expensive updates while allowing what has been used for the last 35 or 40 years. Pretty simple concept!
BTW, I would consider being an "elite" driver to be a compliment. Elite drivers/teams make sure they acquire the tools to get the job done!

[sharplikestump]

It might be a good time to "do the numbers" on some of the options here.
Concider this:
If we are talking about the original design 1200 cc piston, with the 2.5mm top and 2nd. ring grooves, such as we had made for us by K/S, AND if you are using C&A dykes rings:
It is my experience that the lateral ring groove clearance is on the high side when both pieces are NEW, always more than the optimum clearance, and sometimes more than the factory wear limit for STOCK application. Using the M/C ring allows you to lap in the worn or new spacer, usually 0-.002, yielding the desirable clearance. The 2nd. groove M/C ring is a slip-in.
The M/C oil ring works best with the custom backer/spacers, or you can still use your VW oil ring. The biggest difference I see is that if you set the VW unit as soft as the M/C ring is, you will burn more oil.
If we compare cost of the full M/C setup, including the backer/spacers, we are talking $295. Without the custom backer/spacers, $120.
The last time I priced C&A dykes rings (and was actually able to get them), the DEALER price was $36 EACH. In order to get new VW style rings, you have to buy the whole set. For just (4) dykes rings and (4) oil rings, I figure $175.
Now, factor in that the M/C rings last longer, and DON'T eat the cylinders, and please remember that the backer/spacers are a ONE-TIME PURCHASE.
Now, let's move to the latest pistons, which have have the later style 2 mm. ring grooves, as with the 1300cc engine:
With the M/C rings and custom backers, I am working on spacers for the top and 2nd. grooves. I think these (8) spacers should be available for approx. $30. bringing the total price up to about $325. Without the oil ring backers, we're talking $150. TOTAL.
As far as using your dykes rings in these pistons.....FORGET IT!. There are no dykes rings/spacers that will work with these pistons (NONE!), for two reasons: Your dykes/spacer is .5mm too thick, and because of what is known as the "D Ring Factor", that combo, be it C&A or Pacific, will be jammed into the cyl. wall by the shallower groove, of course seizing the engine. Good luck on getting someone to build us all new rings and spacers, and if they did, based on current prices, you are looking at over $450, for (8) dykes rings and (8) spacers!
OK, so maybe new pistons: Last time I looked into it, they were talking a serious quantity, AT LEAST 1,000 units, if you wanted any kind of a decent price. Please remember that you will also need to, or have someone else machine those pistons... decking, lightening, and balancing. There goes AT LEAST another $100.
Additionally, I figure on replacing pistons, (on an average) every 3 seasons. This is partially due to sinkholes forming in the deck (not a good sign), but also due to the heavier rings with their higher friction hammering the groove, (with the resulting increase in leakdown), along with general material fatigue. Try machining a piston that has been raced for several seasons, vs a new one, and you will see what I mean. I have recently seen two ring lands broken off (between the top and 2nd. ring groove).
And again, please remember...you don't have to go the custom backers, but if you do, it is a one-time purchase that I am absolutely convinced saves you money in the long run. Now factor in how that $175 compares to tires, entry fees, lodging, etc, etc.
But, what do I know....I've only built a couple thousand of these hummers.
Mike Palermo Jr.

[brian]

Every thing that Mike says, as ususal, is right on. One additional piece of info, I received preliminary estimates of $70 to $100 apiece for 1st grade pistons that would not need any additional machining and have precision ring lands that will reduce land hammering considerably.

I do not recommend upgrades unless it least makes financial sense. It's the accountant in me. Whether it be to avoid preparation costs or extend life, all progress is not bad. I agree with Greg, upgrades just because we can afford them, doesn't make sense either. Greg, I thought you'd left the vee family, my apologies.

Heard a great bit: "You do not drive a vee, you negotiate with it."

[problemchild]

Please excuse my ignorance, but I am sure that others may have the same questions. These may be old questions but I have not seen them discussed here before. I am not attacking anyone but trying to understand the issue..

Why not use the original style 1200 pistons which rings are available for? Is there a supply issue?

The GCR says that all alternate and replacement parts must be "dimensionally identical", listed by VW as replacement, and interchangable? How are these skinny-groove pistons legal in the first place?
These pistons don't seem interchangable or dimensionally identical. Does VW list these pistons as replacement parts?

[brian]

Really godd points Greg. You made me drag out all the old GCR's I have and see if the language had changed or why I thought we could use alternative rings. Couldn't find any language changes going back a few years. Let;s deal with the issues you raised. First, all the rings in question are steel. Some may have different mixtures but they are still steel. . I think the material issue is open for interpretation but a case could be made for the replacements.

Second, as far as the dimensional and tolerance issues are concerned, the rule states that these issues be compliant with the GCR, not VW specs. I can't find where, in recent years, this has changed, but originally, VW specs were required. It may be a stretch, but one could argue that the current rings use a stock ring land and using the spacer makes the piece compliant.

Regarding the OEM rings. The stock cast steel rings would prove problematic since they don't respond to heat very well Get them hot and they'll loose tension. They do wear faster so it could mean more frequent rebuilds.

Last, you're right, the skinny groove pistons are NOT compliant. That's why I have requested the rule change.