Oil Sump Rule Change

[hardingfv32-1]

The June Fastrack is out and no mention of any change to the FV oil sump rule. Administratively, does this mean it is out as a 2010 rule change?

There seemed to be very few changes for all of the classes if this was in fact some kind of drop dead date for 2010 rule changes.

Brian

[brian]

Sems the latest Fastrac has approved the sump extension for 01/01/10

[hardingfv32-1]

No, it is under the member input section. I believe they are just stating when it WOULD go into effect if approved.

In general does anyone have issues with the wording?

Brian

[sabre1]

This sump proposal has some benefits; it also has a few negatives.

Benefits: better (BUT NOT GUARANTEED) oil supply. There are a couple of off-the-shelf units out there right now (CB Performance has a 1.5 qt unit that fits well, and also 2 and 4 qt versions; perhaps there are others).

Negatives: There is no limit to the size of the sump except that it can't extend below the chassis; SO, my new sump will be big enough to hold ALL my oil which will seriously reduce internal windage of the oil interacting with the crank - ask anyone who dynos our engines and they will confirm that a lower oil level will increase the HP. This will add some weight to the car. Significant added expense for a custom sump to take advantage of the rule change. Probably more negatives that I haven't yet thought of.

I think that a limited volume sump (say 1.5 quart max.) would be the best approach. You can fabricate one or buy one inexpensively. Keep in mind that the need for the larger sump is due to less than ideal oil control inside the engine. Those steel windage trays that are readily available help but could be better, AND the pick-up tube in the case can have air leaks so you might be sucking air instead of oil during some hard cornering regardless of your sump.

My $.01.

-Jim

PS: If this is approved without limitations, I will be manufacturing and selling swing pickups for the new sumps. Price is TBD.

[SR Racing]

Jim is correct. (I figured someone would think about this.) Theoretically you could keep all the engine oil in a separate cavity and almost have a dry sump. Yes there would be some more HP to be had.

Jim

[hardingfv32-1]

Possible sump capacity.... remember that in a hard corner only half the oil of the sump capacity is available for the for a normal fixed position pickup. The other half will be positioned away from the pickup. So, a 2 qt sump is only good for 1 useable qt of oil. A swinging sump extension will not improve the situation much, as swing arc is limited by the depth of the sump and sump opening in the case.

Brian

[cendiv37]

OK guys, it's time to let your fingers do the talking. The discussion here is valuable and helps stimulate further thinking and discussion of the issue. Good to see.

But as Fastrack says: "Member input is suggested and encouraged."
How 'bout we give them some of what they're asking for.

If you have strong feelings either way, write to: crb@scca.com
If you strongly agree, write. If you strongly oppose, write. If you agree but want some changes, write.
If you strongly oppose or agree and don't write, don't complain about the result.

For reference: How to write a letter to the CRB:
http://www.formulavee.org/interchange/v ... ump#p17165

Previous forum discussions on this issue:
http://www.formulavee.org/interchange/v ... &sk=t&sd=a

http://www.formulavee.org/interchange/v ... ump#p18020

http://www.formulavee.org/interchange/v ... ump#p17349

So now what's your excuse for not writing?

[sabre1]

Adding to my previous post, I think the wording of the proposed rule change is fine except that a volume limit should be added. Thank you to whoever put the effort in to do this.

Also, just for clarification, I'm only suggesting the 1.5 quart limit because of the unit from CB Performance. This is currently listed on their website for $70 so it is within reach of most Vee competitors. Vertical height of this unit is about 2" so it is shallower than many other currently used sump extensions and so it should fit most cars. I honestly don't know how well it would work for us, but it is a reasonably priced option.

-Jim

[problemchild]

I used the 1.5 qt CB sump on my FST car for a season. It is a very nice piece.

Aside from the depth, people will need to consider clearance to the chassis cross-member under the bell-housing. I had issues there .... ground away some of the chassis and enough of the sump body that I had to weld a patch on.

[SR Racing]

I am not sure that CB sells the 1.5 sump anymore. (I could only find the 2 qt units..) But Scat has them and we have them. I think the SCAT is a bit better. It is a lower profile and it uses a stock flat VW cover plate with stock gaskets. The CB one uses a larger plate and requires a special gasket. (To do an oil change you have to remove all of the nuts.) Also the Scat (from us) is at a lower price than the CB. We also have one of the older 1.5 CB units in stock at under the $70 price.

Call with any questions.

If you are supporting the rule change, I think I would elect to support up to 2 qt unit since it appears to be more available. (Assuming CB no longer carries the 1.5 unit) For any slight variances, I would also suggest that the rule be 2.2 qts (etc.).


Jim

[wroché29]

I'm concerned about sumps getting plucked-off on curbing, etc, but I'm even more concerned about the poor souls out there with engines angled downward ala Lazer & Citation XTC-41 . Even the 1.5 qt. sump will wind-up below the frame rail. That leaves us with 1.5 qts more oil for the crank to slosh through than the other guys...

[cendiv37]

My car also has a tilted engine/trans. I don't think my problem (more difficult installation, maybe a custom built sump) is good enough reason to not allow extended sumps at all. Yes it will be more difficult. On the other hand it might help us more than others in keeping the engine compartment cleaner.

As far as the concern with dragging them over curbs, that is the reason for the frame rail wording limiting the depth on sumps larger that 250 cc's. If it can't hang below the frame rails, it shouldn't hit the curbs (first anyway).

We didn't want to disallow any currently legal sumps, thus the "sumps larger than 250 cc's" wording.

[hardingfv32-1]

I believe it is the camshaft that might be sloshing through the oil.

Life is a compromise... What is more important for your car, a lower CG (engine) or a better oil supply?

I don't think we have to tell competitors to protect the bottom of their sumps. They will learn the hard way soon enough if they have it wrong. None of the other classes seem to have issues with sump damage. That said, there is no reason to modify the proposal.

Brian

[jpetillo]

Possible sump capacity.... remember that in a hard corner only half the oil of the sump capacity is available for the for a normal fixed position pickup. The other half will be positioned away from the pickup. So, a 2 qt sump is only good for 1 useable qt of oil. A swinging sump extension will not improve the situation much, as swing arc is limited by the depth of the sump and sump opening in the case.
Brian

Adding to what Brian said, considering a large sump as a separate cavity that contains all the oil is fine but to be that it assumes that we can get the oil back down there. If we're currently draining our 250 cc sumps and not refiliing them during hard cornering, then the larger separate cavity will just become a bigger cavity that we're still not filling. If the refill problem isn't dealt with, then a larger sump would only delay when it goes empty. I believe someone stated that the pump moved about 250 cc per second. So, the 2 qt sump would last 3 seconds more (without a swinging pickup) - that helps. The swinging pickup would increase that by another 3-4 seconds - even better. But, a swinging pickup may be expensive and if it fails to swing and gets stuck in the wrong direction then it could be a problem. It may be cheaper and/or easier to go with an AccuSump if you can fit one.

If the oil is sitting in the valve covers and not going back down the sump hole, then I think the rules should allow us to pipe the oil back into the sump from the valve covers if we want. This may be enough to solve the problem with our current 250 cc sumps. It may not look pretty, but it's a race car - function over form. It might be an inexpensive solution (always good) as well as a solution for the slanted engined cars instead of custom sumps. And if it doesn't cause a performance gain and solves a problem what's the harm?!

John

[hardingfv32-1]

I'm not sure why the proposed rule does not allow return lines from the valve covers. I would say they would not be of much value as I think the oil out in the valve cover is not going to flow into the sump while you are in a turn. Once you leave the turn the oil can return through the push rod tubes. Oil flow into the valve covers through the valve train oil system is not that great. Your engine can survive 4-5 min with a valve cover off at speed on the track.

Brian

[jpetillo]

Brian,

You're talking about the oil pumping through the system getting into the valve train area, and I would agree with you. I was talking about sloshing oil getting up there.

The question is, if the oil is not returning to the sump through the sump opening, then where is it going? I thought some of it might be going backwards up the push rod tubes as it climbs up the walls of the crankcase in a corner and filling up the behind the valve cover. With the current oil levels we run, the oil is close to the bottom of the push rod tubes just sitting. It would seem that during hard cornering this might be the first place it would go. That could be about a quart of oil. If this is the case then a return tube to the sump could help.

John

[hardingfv32-1]

A well made "windage tray" is mounted below the cam shaft and push rod holes. It will stop all the oil from going out the push rod tubes. A second form of oil control are aluminum sleeves installed in front to the of the push rods tubes (near the lifters) in the block/case. As stated before you can get in a couple of laps with a valve cover off before you see the oil light, so I don't think much oil travels outward through the push rod tubes.

Brian

[jpetillo]

Thanks Brian. Okay, now I understand. I didn't know exactly what was in there for windage and oil control - sounds pretty good. Is what you described standard practice for all the FV engine builders?

Let me ask another question, could the same windage also be stopping oil from getting back down into the sump during hard cornering? Without seeing the inside, I still don't see why the oil's not getting back down. I took some very rough measurements of the case size and sump opening (from the outside) and for 1 G cornering the oil should be filling the sump. But, Jim mentioned 1.6 G's. I'll take a look at that case. Thanks for bearing with me.

John

[hardingfv32-1]

The std stamped steel tray used by most builders is not a perfect fit, so there would be some leakage out of the sump region. The sleeves are a perfect fit.

Generally the oil returns to the sump through the center of the tray, so half the returning oil will be trapped above the tray do to the cornering forces.

Brian

[jpetillo]

Brian, thanks. On the web, all the windage trays I found look like the one at the bottom of the page in the link below. Assuming that's similar to what you're talking about I can understand what you described. I also saw 1.5 & 3.5 qt sumps. There were no dimensions given.

http://www.dansperformanceparts.com/bug ... 20case.htm

John

[brian]

The windage tray shown needs some modifications. Some builders weld a fence in the middle to reduce side sloshing. I also increase the number and size of the holes to increase the return rate. The sleeves for the push rod tubes used to be called slopper stoppers and can be made from surplus pushrod tubes. I take a dowel and slide the tube over the dowel and use a saw or tube cutter to slice sections about 5/8 long and insert them in the case. They will slightly slow the return of oil to the crankcase, but stop all the sloshing into the valve covers. Another upgrade is to either eliminate or increase the hole size on the sump screens. Cold oil will bridge over the screen and starve the starve the sump and pickup. I use a magnet to attract anything that may get into the sump and avoid the screen all together. SInce upgrading the rocker arms eliminates the clippies that break and fall into the sump, there's really nothing else to fall into the sump and a screen is a lousy filter anyway. My gut feeling, learned from having rebuilt other builder's engines, is that some do not bother with this effort. Maybe that's why some motors have oiling issues, mine don't.

[SR Racing]

Here is what we are going to install on our dyno. This should verify the effectiveness of sumps...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fv53Rbvg ... r_embedded

Jim

[hardingfv32-1]

Damm, spot on Jim.

Brian

[brian]

"9.1.1.C5.d.18 Valve covers are unrestricted and may be bolted on" Couldn't you do anything you wanted to a valve cover if they are unrestricted?

[jpetillo]

That does allow us to mess with the valve covers, but the sump rule would have to allow an external connection, or be unrestricted, too.

Why can't the rule just list the restrictions that make sense? The volume should be unrestricted. I can see that it shouldn't hang below the car so that it grinds down as you hit bumps and depressions. I can't think of anything else that should be restricted about the sump. What did I forget?

Until then, I'm waiting for Jim to let us know when the new dyno mods are completed.

John