New manifold rules in GCR

[Dmclellan]

Will this new wording make some manifolds that are now okay, illegal after 04-01-09?

[FV80]

Nothing that was LEGAL before should be illegal now (or then) because of the rules CLARIFICATIONS. There are no real CHANGES - just some added 'legalize' to remove some misunderstandings. The only NUMBER that has been added is the dimensions on the flanges - It was never ALLOWED to stretch the flanges, but it appeared that some might have thought it OK. The dimension was added to make SURE that the flanges were not messed with beyond 'matching' to the heads. Actually, the rules have been 'relaxed' a bit to tecnically legalize REPAIRs (within reason) of manifolds that are damaged in crashes - as long as they still meet the rest of the rules section.

OTOH - there might be a couple of manifolds out there that were ILLEGAL before, and are CLARIFIED to be ILLEGAL now, with the increased number of words.

The rules have always said ' if not "ALLOWED", then you CAN'T - if in doubt, DON'T'.
Steve

[robert]

What became of the Australian "control" manifold that the "committee" was investigating?

[hardingfv32-1]

Steve

1) No one can state at TECH that a manifold has been stretched because these are not machined surfaces with precise dimensions. VW could not tell you what the dimensions (or range) could be because they never specified or tracked them. Even the process of choosing the new flange dimensions is an indication of this issue. About 80 units were looked at and to find the LARGEST example. I would throw away a lot of cores (increase costs) that are not close to this flange max dimension if I did it your way.

2) A MAJOR change is the min weight BEFORE bronze repairs. This was a very good gray area that was used to meet min weight in the past. This is still a grey area, because you cannot measure how much the bronze repairs actually weigh to subtract from the manifold total weight and get back to the 24 oz min.

3) A MAJOR flaw in the "if not "ALLOWED", then you CAN'T - if in doubt, DON'T" rule.....What I and TECH think is allowed might not agree with what you think. This is what GREY is all about, nothing black and white in this statement.

We here at "Monster Mannies" are quite happy with the new rules and have intake manifolds now available that are FULLY compliant. We are STILL able to guaranty a 2 HP gain over any other Vee manifold, money back guaranty.

Brian Harding
310 455-2747 Anytime-always in the shop making manifolds

[brian]

I agree with Brian about this rewrite. A lot of things that were done in the past are now spelled out as illegal. While it was legal to remove internal material, nothing in the GCR alllowed chemical milling, ball sizing or separation of components. None of the manifolds out there with these modifications have been ruled illegal. I know there are many manifolds out there that have had their outsides sanded. I'm not sure how tech could know what happened but all those manifolds have been run for years but are now technically illegal.

The idea of stretching casted steel is ludicrous. The variability of these casting is huge and will cause issues for tech. There was a lot of dialog at the Runoffs about later model casting being adapted to vee manifolds and that was just silly. I did some confirmation research and feel very confident that there was NEVER a larger or later model casting made by VW. After the 40hp, VW went to an angled intake are required a floating flange to attach a manifold to the head.

My interpretation about repair bronze and weight was simple. Unless the manifold was clearly above the minimum 24oz., it was questionable.

Truth be known, there were some killer manifolds at the Runoffs that upset the apple cart. Since there was insufficient clarity to deem the new manifolds illegal, the rules were rewritten. Why else was the rule rewritten without membership input and implemented so quickly? Flame on guys.

[Dave Gomberg]

... Why else was the rule rewritten without membership input and implemented so quickly? ...

That is why the changes are in the February Fastrack. It is a proposed rule. Member comment is explicitly requested at the beginning of the Recommended Rules Change section (it always is). Send your inputs soon. The BoD will be asked to approve this at their Convention meeting.

Dave

[cendiv37]

OK, I'll bite though I probably shouldn't.

brian said:

"I know there are many manifolds out there that have had their outsides sanded. I'm not sure how tech could know what happened but all those manifolds have been run for years but are now technically illegal."

Brian, I take this to mean that you believe that anything that has been done for years but has always been *clearly* illegal by the existing rules over those years should now be made legal?

I guess I just have to say I disagree...

Please, write letters and make your points with the CRB and BOD.
That means ALL of you out there. The more letters, the better the reading the BOD can get as to where the class members want to go.

[hardingfv32-1]

Removing material from the outside of the manifold....

This is a good example of an issue that needed to have the pros and cons listed so the membership could make an informed decision. I have no idea how restricting outside material removal controls performance or cost when I can remove as much as I want from the inside. I do know many people involved with the manifold rule change would not consider any changes in this matter or provide any reasons for this position.

As one who preps manifolds, I'm going to get where I need to go dimensionally (using legally means) no matter what the rule. It would be easier (cheaper) to have the option to remove material from the outside.

What Brian is saying about old manifolds is that it was NEVER "clear" that removing metal from the outside was illegal. Why would we be clarifying this section of the manifold rules if it was so clear before.

Brian

[SOseth]

What became of the Australian "control" manifold that the "committee" was investigating?

Robert;

The last I heard (now a couple of years ago)was that the Aussie's were having a hard time with the control manifold. I think the tube diameter was too large making part throttle running poor. We tried to get one but were unsuccessful.

SteveO

[problemchild]

As this thread stands, in order to form an opinion, one would have to find a GCR, find and interpret the existing rule, then find wherever fastrack or other official SCCA posting has the proposed changes, and interpret those. This may take 5 mins or hours depending on the person. Many would then want to get opinions from their engine builder and/or advisors. This is clearly beyond the interest level of most in the most apathetic group of racers on the planet. Writing the actual letter would be the easy part.

Perhaps .... somebody should post the existing rule and the proposed change. It might attract interest and spark people to think about the topic, maybe even form an opinion, and write a letter

Cheers!

[Bill_Bonow]

What became of the Australian "control" manifold that the "committee" was investigating?

Robert;

The last I heard (now a couple of years ago)was that the Aussie's were having a hard time with the control manifold. I think the tube diameter was too large making part throttle running poor. We tried to get one but were unsuccessful.

SteveO

Steve/Robert,

I keep in regular contact with the FVANSW President, Ray Filetti. A very limited number of 1200 "control" manifolds were fabricated as at the same time, CAMS recognized FV 1600 as a class. The switch to 1600 was so strong that the demand for the 1200 "control" manifold was no longer an issue. In fact the '08 CAMS FV 1200 rules no longer list a specific "control" manifold, just size and weight limitations.

Bill

[cendiv37]

I'll bite again per Gregg's request.

Old vs. proposed new rules:

Original from 2009 GCR

20. The manifold heat riser tube and heat sink shall be removed. Removal of metal from the interior of the intake manifold and the interior rust-proofed is permitted provided that the following dimensions are not exceeded.

a. Down Tube: The down tube shall be measured at two different locations within an area between .500” and 2.00” above the horizontal manifold tube. Each measurement shall be taken four times, rotating around the circumference of the tube, and averaged. averaged down tube dimension shall not exceed 1.140 inches O.D.

b. Horizontal Tube: The horizontal tube shall be measured at four different locations on each side of the down tube. The area to be measured on each side of the down tube is defined as being between the bend and a point that is 1.500” from the center of the down tube connection. Each measurement will be taken four (4) times, rotating around the circumference of the tube, and averaged. Averaged horizontal tube dimension shall not exceed 0.994 inches O.D.

c. The manifold shall not weigh less than 24 ounces.

d. All exterior surfaces shall be in original condition and unpainted but may have a thin, transparent coat of rust proofing material.

e. Matching of manifold flanges is permitted.

New, Proposed and out for member input per February Fast Track:

SUBMITTED TO BoD FOR APPROVAL

The following subjects will be referred to the Board of Directors for approval. Address all comments, both for and against, to the Club Racing Board. Comments may be e-mailed to crb (at) scca.com.

GCR

...

Formula

Item 1. Effective 4/1/09: Change FV section 9.1.1.C.5.D.20 as follows:

US imported, VW Type 1, 1200 sedan manifold must be used. The manifold heat riser tube and heat sink shall be removed. Removal of metal from the interior of the intake manifold and the interior rust-proofed is permitted provided that the following dimensions are
not exceeded.

a. Down Tube: The down tube shall be measured at two different locations within an area between .500” and 2.00” above the horizontal manifold tube. Each measurement shall be taken four times, rotating around the circumference of the tube, and averaged. Averaged down tube dimension shall not exceed 1.140 inches O.D. Removing material from the outside of the manifold to achieve the legal dimension is not permitted. Removal of the manifold down tube from the horizontal tube is prohibited. The original factory furnace bronze attaching process and original factory bronze repair material MAY be visible, inside and outside the
manifold.

b. Horizontal Tube: The horizontal tube shall be measured at four different locations on each side of the down tube. The area to be measured on each side of the down tube is defined as being between the bend and a point that is 1.500” from the center of the down tube connection. Each measurement will be taken four (4) times, rotating around the circumference of the tube, and averaged. Averaged horizontal tube dimension shall not exceed 0.994 inches O.D. Removing material from the outside of the manifold to achieve the legal dimension is not permitted.

c. The finished, race prepared, manifold shall not weigh less than 24 ounces. Intake manifolds may be repaired. Repaired manifolds shall start at 24 ounces BEFORE repair. The addition of excessive material to achieve the minimum weight is not permitted.

d. All exterior surfaces shall be in original condition. Bead blasting is permitted for cleaning only. Manifolds must remain unpainted with color but may have a thin, transparent coat of rust proofing material or clear coat type material applied. Removing material from the outside of the manifold to achieve the legal dimension is not permitted.

e. Matching of manifold flanges (to the ports) is permitted. Seal rings or “gaskets” of any type are acceptable as long as the bottom of the manifold flange is not raised above the cylinder head casting around the port opening. Removal of the manifold flanges that connect the manifold to the cylinder head is prohibited. Factory “VW” casting marks surrounded by a circle and VW casting numbers shall be visible on the bottom side of the flanges, closest to the head. No repair material of any type shall be visible or cover these markings on the bottom of the flanges. Factory furnace Bronze and manifold repair material may be visible where the horizontal tube enters the top of the flange. The exterior dimensions of these flanges must not exceed 2.990” x 1.360”.

[Matt King]

So basically the change is that you can't reduce the thickness of the metal from both sides of the tube to allow stretching the ID within the existing OD limit. As a newbie, I was surprised to learn just how much alteration is being done to these "stock" manifolds and was a little taken aback to find that a "good" manifold costs $1500-2000.

How is the "original condition" of the outside surface going to be teched? There are experts in the field of replicating original metal finishes and patina that can certainly work around that rule, so I guess the costs will just keep going up. The next thing you know people will be using tungsten to "make weight."

[hardingfv32-1]

Matt

A plasma coating of tungsten would make a great "rust proofing" for the interior. A more cost effective material is a lead based coating system used in the areas that do not restrict the flow.

Nothing to be taken aback about, this is motor racing. In karting a std blueprinted KT100 was about $1200, once one was know to be special, then $2500.

Up until the development of Monster Manies, the std procedure was to trade your way through many manifolds in search of one of those rare, almost mythical, super Kochanski manifolds. If you consider $500 the starting price for manifolds then $1000+ for one of maybe 20-30 super manifolds makes financial sense. One of those 20-30 super Kochanski's is easily worth as much 2 HP (on a 60 HP engine) to the average Vee competitor.

It is not just good driving from the old timers at the front of the pack, it is years and $$ spent assembling all the right pieces. Racing 50 year old engines does not prevent our class from suffering all the afflictions found in the rest of the motor racing world.

It is MY opinion that you are not INTERPRETING the rules correctly. This is good, it means that there is still a lot of gray area to work in.

Brian
Monster Manies
310 455-2747 Loa Angeles
hardingfv32@verizon.net

[brian]

Dave G., I guess I misunderstood the fact that the CRB has already recommended this rule to the BOD doesn't make it a done deal. Since when do we write the BOD instead of the CRB before a recommendation? This proposal should have gone to the membership BEFORE recommendation to the BOD. The convention starts in 16 days.

Bruce, you know I'm more conservative than most and would never think that something is legal just because it was past practice. What I'm saying is that caution should be used when tightening up the language and to consider the unexpected consquence of change. It's the same thing I said in my original letter to the CRB. The outside material removal rule is unenforceable. How does an inspector know material has been removed? A bit of glass bead blasting and all sign of sanding are gone.

I do not have an interest in how this issue shakes out. I do not own any questionable manifolds from anyone including Brian. I'm not happy with the way this whole issue has been handled.

[Matt King]

It is MY opinion that you are not INTERPRETING the rules correctly. This is good, it means that there is still a lot of gray area to work in.

I didn't think I was offering an interpretation of the rule, just trying to read what was added to the new proposal compared to the old. Sure there is a lot of gray area in racing. Certainly there is a wide variation in stock manifolds and some are much better than others. Testing and trading your way through dozens of stock manifolds to find the best is clearly legal. I assume at some point in the history of the class it was deemed OK to modify a manifold to be "as good" as a stock one "could be." And then the definition of how good a stock one might possibly be got stretched, and stretched, and stretched (pun intended).

[hardingfv32-1]

Comparing the old and new manifold rules....

a) 1 - We are now acknowledging the exists of factory bronze repairs. Not sure why this is necessary.

2 - Removal of the down tube is now prohibited. Not sure what the benefit of removing the down tube would be. NOTHING can be done to improve the flow of the junction ASSUMING you have a junction that is properly aligned and mated. This is the second thing after rust that you screen a manifold core for using a video system. 50% of all cores fail one of these two screening criteria. Extensive flow and dyno testing show no relevance to the size if the radius at the junction.

b) No removal of material form the outside. What is the purpose of this? Just raises costs/prep time. I can ball size to the exact max OD dimension and reduce any oversize areas by compressing the exterior back down with a die. There is often factory bronze puddles in the interior middle of the horizontal tubes. Bronze does not etch with the acid I use. So there can be some irregularities that need to be dealt with.

c) The manifold must weigh 24 oz BEFORE repairs. This will be very difficult to enforce. No way to measure the bronze already applied. It WILL prevent a manifold from being AT 24 oz AND having any repairs. So stay above 24 oz and have Tech guess how much the bronze repairs weigh.

d) Adds bead blasting. As with the carb rules, this pretty much provides a surface finish that allows anything to go undetected below it. Not sure if this is good or bad. Controlling the exterior finish just might not be possible.

e) 1-Added flange measurements. This was the main reason for the rule changes. Flanges were becoming very large on the latest manifolds. A definite performance area.

2 - Specified dimension on the manifold to head gasket. Possibly adapters were required for the super size flanges that are now controlled by the flange dimensions. That being the case them I not sure why anything new is required. A somewhat larger OD and taller part would make machine of this "gasket"/adapter easier. The primary function of the "gasket" is to control manifold alignment on the head. The manifolds usually are not a perfect match because the engine is narrower than stock because material is usually removed form the tops of the pistons for lightening.

3 - Can't remove the flanges. Not sure what performance benefit removing the flanges would have. The flanges respond very nicely to heat and properly directed force.

4 - Again acknowledging the use of bronze repairs in this area. This is one of MOST common areas of manifold cracking. The ID is etched/ground very thin in an effort to get max flow. This type of failure is COMPLETELY unnecessary with the latest prepping techniques.

Brian
Monster Manies
310 455-2747
hardingfv32@verizon.net

[wroché29]

Manifold prepping illiterate here, but curious none the less... If the flange dimensions were added to limit the practice of hammering the ID larger and thus enlarging the overall dimensions; couldn't the two specified dimensions be constrained and the "bulge" would relocate elsewhere (with proper heat)?... god I hate these f'n manifolds

[Dave Gomberg]

Dave G., I guess I misunderstood the fact that the CRB has already recommended this rule to the BOD doesn't make it a done deal. Since when do we write the BOD instead of the CRB before a recommendation? This proposal should have gone to the membership BEFORE recommendation to the BOD. The convention starts in 16 days.

This is the way all rules changes are put through the system. We get requests which get referred to the appropriate advisory committee (or the staff may make a request or the advisory committee may initiate a change), the advisory committees make recommendations to us (which we go along with almost all the time), the rules changes are published as Recommendations to the BoD (with the request for member comments). The BoD considers those requests at their next meeting (as long as there has been a 30 day period for the member comments). The February Fastrack was released on January 20. The BoD will meet on February 21.

There is still plenty of time to send an email with your comments.

Dave

[hardingfv32-1]

Bill

Your Idea to form a square flange is very good. This would optimize the area available but would require a "gasket" that matches the square manifold flange to the round port opening.

Maybe this is why the new rules are so restrictive with the manifold to head "gaskets".

Now tell me this isn't FUN!

Brian

[jpetillo]

Guys, some excellent points.

I think we need to address in letters those issues with the new rules where a standard non-vee-literate tech guy can't misinterpret them. The rule about a manifold having to weight 24 oz. before repair is honorable for fairness, but simply unenforceable. That one simply scares me. Some of our tech guys are top notch, some not so much. Remember, the good guys will do whatever they can to not over-rule a bad call. Don’t ask me how I know. Anyway, it human nature in organizations for people to protect their own - that will never change.

Don’t forget we have many tech guys that have zero technical background. They are there as volunteers, and there is no minimum set of credentials. They are interested in the sport - that brings them there! We need to help them do their jobs. Too many of us have witnessed their technical interpretations being far off due to lack of background. It makes you want to scream. Anyway, we need to offer suggestions for these rules so that ambiguity can be minimized.

For me, I’m afraid that my already poor performing manifold will be illegal because the silly circled VW on one side is mostly gone once they drilled the stud holes. That will cause what really is a not-top-performing legal manifold that meets the spirit of the old and new rules to have to be replaced. That could sideline me this year if that ends up happening. Perhaps you folks in the know about manifolds can come up with another criterion for the flanges to be measured by. The circled VW cannot ensure compliance anyway, they are relatively randomly located.

So, let’s continue this discussion and then send our letters out, say, by the weekend. If there are going to be new rules, let’s help these folks make them tight.

[brian]

JPettillo, the flange language has been a major concern of mine and a topic in the letter to the CRB. If you're concerned about not making any racees due to a bad manifold, call me I've got some shelf units that we can arrange to get to you.

Since I'm not sure where this issue is in the process, folks, please write a letter to both the BOD and CRB .

Dave, If the proposal has been recommended to the BOD, why do we write to the CRB? Isn't that like closing the gate after the cow's out? I confirmned my interpretation of this timing issue with a fellow former CRB member and they agreed this was out of sequence. Maybe things have changed but a letter used to flow from Advisory committee, CRB, members then BOD and only if it is a recommended. Dead issues, i.e. rejected letters and proposals, need only an update in Fastrac.

[SOseth]

a) 1 - We are now acknowledging the exists of factory bronze repairs. Not sure why this is necessary.

This was mentioned to re enforce the arguement that we should legally be allowed to repair a damaged intake manifold. It was/is not specifically legal to repair a damaged manifold as it was not specifically allowed within the rules. (remember, strictly speaking if the rules don't say you can do it, then you really can't.) This as considered a cost saving item so that competitors would not have to purchase a new manifold if their manifold cracked.

2 - Removal of the down tube is now prohibited.

Removal of the downtube or in fact any part of the manifold other than the heat riser has never been legal. I'm not saying it hasn't been done, but not legally.

b) No removal of material form the outside.

It has never been legal to remove material from anywhere other than the interior surfaces of the manifold. The old rule states "The manifold heat riser tube and heat sink shall be removed. Removal of metal from the interior of the intake manifold and the interior rust-proofed is permitted provided that the following dimensions are not exceeded." This new language simply re enforces and clarifies the existing rules.

c) The manifold must weigh 24 oz BEFORE repairs.

I will confess that this was my idea. I know this will be hard to enforce, but I have seen new manifolds with an extraordinary amount repair bronze on them. Not only where they normally crack at the flanges, but also in the middle of the crosstubes. If these new manifolds are so weak that they have to repaired before delivery to the customer, then there racing life will be very short. I have had a number of manifolds in my FV experience but never have I purchased a new manifold that had any repair bronze on it.

e) 1-Added flange measurements. This was the main reason for the rule changes. Flanges were becoming very large on the latest manifolds. A definite performance area.

I agree.

SteveO

[fv195]

Just a thought,
is it a possibility that the excess bronze is there to bring it up to the min weight, because of material removed from the inside? an illeagle manifold, thinned out so much that weight had to be added to get the 24 oz?
just a thought.
THOR

[cendiv37]

Thor,

That's exactly the thinking behind SteveO's and the committee's concerns and thus the new language.