My letter about the FV spec intake

[jpetillo]

To Jpetiilo and others, I've posted something in the parts section that may interest you and reduce your costs.

Checked it out - many thanks!

[cendiv37]

Bruce,

When the Aussies went to the spec manifold, did they have to make any improvements/changes to carb, heads, etc.... Can you give us a bit more info if you have it, as to what other factors might need to be addressed with this proposed change and what additional debates this could lead to down the road (similar to this current subject)... will we see these discussions in a few years just based on a different components?

Imagine how much better prepped most of the cars out there would be if half of them did not spend their free-time b*tching online about this! At least by now some people could have eliminated the excessive ziptie and duct-tape "artwork" holding their cars together and could now be working on chassis setup!

Thanks,

Jim Dziewior

Personally, I doubt there is much more to be had from the carbs we are using. Sharper minds might disagree. Still, if we keep the overall performance level similar to what we have now (flow and HP), I don't see much need to change the carbs.

IF we went with a spec. manifold that *intentionally* flowed significantly better and made more HP than our current manifolds do (as the Aussies did), there is probably more that could be done with the heads and maybe the carbs. If we stay near our current performance level, I think we could avoid most of this, but I can't promise it. The desired performance level is a choice that needs to be made.

For some background, straight from the Aussies:
As you will see, your mileage may vary

From David Cutts:

Hi Bruce,

In NSW the introduction of the control manifold coincided with the introduction of 1600. That being the case I've done very little in the way in terms of specialised engine developement. That being said one of my engines won both the 2006 and 2007 1200 nationals. That motor just had the new manifold bolted and went to the 05 nats un-dynoed or freshened

At the same time as the manifold introduction we had a compression ratio increase, up to 8.5:1 this was part of a sort of paritying of the 2 classes. They were never going to be the same but it ekpt the powers that be happy. the combined comp ratio and manifold was worth about 6 to 10 hp at the rear wheels with it mainly at the top end. Power from 5000 to 6000 rpm was almost a flat line. Some complained of flat spots on acceleration but rejetting of the pilot circuit seem to fix the problem.

I've never driven a 1200 with the new manifold and most of the guys running now were not around before the introduction but I would say it has been for the better for the class. Manifolds were costing up to and over $1000 and really dictated whether you had decent hp or not. At everyone in the field knew they had the same be it the front guy or the guy coming last. It also adressed the growing problem of getting a decent second hand manifold to start with (aust 1200 has been out of production since 1965).


Any further info or anything that may help let me know and if I've got the info I'm happy to pass it on.

best wishes, David.

From Paul Corcoran, engine builder, car preparer and actual fabricator of the Aussie "Control" manifolds:

Hi Bruce,

{he started with a a side discussion about their FV 1600 specifications and performance controls which I won't bore you with}

The guys who say that it would require head and carb changes to achieve the full potential of the manifold are right but they're missing the point, which is not to achieve the ultimate performance gain but to provide everyone with the opportunity of having a top performing manifold at a reasonable price.
I was on the National Committee when these manifolds were introduced. A couple of questions raised in discussion where.
Was there a general support for a control manifold?
Yes there was a general support (and had been for a while) from the members, particularly the "have nots" but also the top end competitors who realised the manifold situation was out of hand and had been for some time. Today's "have" is tomorrow's "have not".
Should the use of the manifold be mandatory?
Yes, otherwise the object of the exercise, to provide everybody with a manifold of equal performance would be defeated.
Should the manifold outperform the modified stock manifolds?
Yes, then everybody gets a performance boost, even the guys with the "gun" manifolds.
I realise there may be some cultural differences at work here. Australians in general are probably more accepting of regulation for the common good than Americans anyway. For example, we have had a control camshaft, ground to spec. by one supplier, since the early 90's. Again to the general acclaim of the competitors.
Will be in touch again soon.
Regards,
Paul

The Aussies call their big bend manifolds "gun" manifolds. They were using these before 2003 and decided enough was enough... We Yanks like to think we are the most creative, but don't count on it

Should we decide to proceed towards a spec. manifold in the US, we can build in whatever performance level we want. We might want to bump the bottom end more than the top (maybe save the valve train??) or we might not (don't change the "feel" of the cars, upset the gearing, upset the set-up, etc.) - Lots of touchy-feely reasoning is possible here. The plan would be to build some prototypes of varying tube sizes, etc. and see what they do. Once you know what it takes to achieve the performance level desired, then the design and fab focus would shift to cost control and controlling/certifying consistency from part to part.

We really only have ONE reasonable comparison of the sample Aussie part vs. a current top level manifold. It was a "quicky" test and little time was spent trying to optmize the engine for the manifold. That data indicates the Aussie part gives a pretty good bump at the bottom end with a gradual fall off back to similar HP at about 6500 and finally falling below the current manifold beyond that. With the giant caveat that this is based on a single comparison, unrestricted and without changing the engine at all, the Aussie part would beat our current manifolds quite handily overall. It would feel flatter at the top end because it is falling off faster, but it is still making more HP at 6400 rpm. Again this was a single test.

If you restrict it some, you can pull the whole curve lower so they are similar hp at 5800 but its on its way down so falls below the VW part from there. The run that produced this data was with a restrictor plate made of a 1/4" thick plate and a 23mm opening with a 1/8" radius on the carb side. If you go with a more sharp edged plate it seems to pull down the top end a bit more.

Hope that helps.

[SR Racing]

It was a "quicky" test and little time was spent trying to optmize the engine for the manifold. That data indicates the Aussie part gives a pretty good bump at the bottom end with a gradual fall off back to similar HP at about 6500 and finally falling below the current manifold beyond that. With the giant caveat that this is based on a single comparison, unrestricted...

Granting that it was a "quicky test, this data makes no sense whatsoever. We are told the manifold (aus) flows better yet the HP falls BELOW the current manifold beyond 6500? The pumping losses have been reduced and the high end HP is less ???? Maybe someone could explain that using physics?

Come on guys. Someone should know better, or there have been some big technical mistakes made here.

If some REAL tests aren't not made, with ALL the data, my input to the SCCA and recommended input to anyone else is to leave the rules alone. Based upon the things that are being thrown around here by people that supposedly have done SOME testing, ANY rules input would be highly suspect.

Is ANY REAL data available? Other than ""bigger", "similar", "HP bump"?

[rphillips]

Hi Bruce,

I've also had some correspondence with someone in Australia and what he said is basically the same as what you posted. He also said that many of the top runners almost immediately switched to the 1600 engine though so I'm wondering how much emphasis there was on developing the hp for the 1200 cc motors with the controlled manifold. According to their rules they also run sealed engines so I'm not sure how that affects the comparison between us and them. One very interesting thing that he said is to make sure that someone other than the manufacturer owns the Intellectual Property of the manifold because right now they can't get any made. I wouldn't be surprised if that has driven up the cost of previously made control manifolds unless there really isn't much desire to run a 1200 cc motor. I'm just not sure that there is an apples to apples comparison between the Australians and us.

Although Paul (from your post) states that we are missing the point in regards to head and carb development after the spec manifold is introduced, my point is that this is an unknown cost and I can guarantee that engine builders will spend time developing anything that they think will work better with the spec manifold. That is what we pay them for -- right?

Personally I think we need to focus on getting the rules squared away for 2011 because it is going to take some time (and some money) to develop a spec manifold correctly if that is the path that the majority of the vee competitors want.

Regards,

Ray

[smsazzy]

I am for it. I would like the option to have a spec manifold.

I know Bruce disagrees with me, but I think we should have it as an alternative part for the first couple years. Have it built to flow 10% (pulling that num ber out of thin air) or so better than the best today, then put a restrictor on it for 2 or 3 years to give it similar performance to current manifolds. That gives everyone 3 years to make the purchase, and then take the restrictor out of the system.

That way people can still run their current manifold if desired, or buy a control manifold when they break/dent their current one, or they decide to take the plunge.

[FVartist]

He means me not Bruce Livermore aka cendiv37.


Bruce

[cendiv37]

Clearly way too many Bruces!

[rphillips]

Hi Bruce (Livermore),

We haven't really talked about time lines in these posts. Your obviously an advocate of the spec manifold and your on the FV committee. What do you think is a realistic evaluation to implementation time frame IF a spec manifold is introduced?

Thanks,

Ray

[cendiv37]

Hi Ray,

I've composed about 5 different responses here and erased them all before hitting submit.
I need to wait until after tomorrow night's committee meeting.

Sorry

[CitationFV21]

Is going to a spec part within the spirit of the class? Would this be the first Spec part we would have? Maybe someone knowing the history can comment. If this is the first spec part in FV, then is this the road we want FV to begin to go down?

John,

To answer your question - FV is part spec class, we have specs for pistons, we have specs for intake valves, we have specs for transmission parts. We could have more, we could have less - that is the challenge for the class - how to allow enough rules to keep the cars competitive and allow enough variation to keep it interesting and possible for the home builder to compete.

My reading of the rules is that someone should NOT be able to get a competitive advantage by pushing the envelope of the rules. If you want to experiment within a larger window, there is FF, or DSR. But a better prepared car - better alignment, better engine tuning, better tire management - can lead to an legitimate advantage. But if there is one manifold, or one head, or one ring and pinion that is superior or that you have to spend an abnormal amount to compete, then there is a problem.

ChrisZ

[CitationFV21]

Clearly way too many Bruces!

Just begging for some comic relief: (from http://orangecow.org/pythonet/sketches/bruces.htm)

Second Bruce: G'day, Bruce!
First Bruce: Oh, Hello Bruce!

Third Bruce: How are you Bruce?

First Bruce: A bit crook, Bruce.

Second Bruce: Where's Bruce?

First Bruce: He's not 'ere, Bruce.

Third Bruce: Blimey, it's hot in here, Bruce.

First Bruce: Hot enough to boil a monkey's bum!

Second Bruce: That's a strange expression, Bruce.

First Bruce: Well Bruce, I heard the Prime Minister use it. "It's hot enough to boil a monkey's bum in here, your Majesty," he said and she smiled quietly to herself.

Third Bruce: She's a good Sheila Bruce, and not at all stuck up.

Second Bruce: Here! Here's the boss-fellow now! - how are you bruce?

(Enter fourth Bruce with English person, Michael)

Fourth Bruce: 'Ow are you, Bruce?

First Bruce: G'day Bruce!

Fourth Bruce: Bruce.

Second Bruce: Hello Bruce.

Fourth Bruce: Bruce.

Third Bruce: How are you, Bruce?

Fourth Bruce: G'day Bruce.

Fourth Bruce: Gentleman, I'd like to introduce man from Pommeyland who is joinin' us this year in the philosophy department at the University of Walamaloo.

Everybruce: G'day!

Michael: Hello.

Fourth Bruce: Michael Baldwin, Bruce. Michael Baldwin, Bruce. Michael Baldwin, Bruce.

First Bruce: Is your name not Bruce?

Michael: No, it's Michael.

Second Bruce: That's going to cause a little confusion.

Third Bruce: Mind if we call you "Bruce" to keep it clear?

[smsazzy]

Actually, I meant Livermore. He indicated earlier that he didn't like the idea of it being an alternative part. (I think)

[cendiv37]

Chris, I haven't seen that one in years. Brings back great Monty Memories!

Steve, I actually figured you meant me but...

I do think making it mandatory makes it MUCH easier to implement and overall much more effective at doing what *I* think is the point of the whole exercise: to help control costs. Making it mandatory means it doesn't have to have an "exact" performance match to existing manifolds. It is what it is and we only have to make sure it performs well overall, and performs approximately like what we are using now with a little boost if we choose. This approach just gives us a larger target to hit than worrying about how exactly it's performance matches or compares to existing manifolds.

In the big picture, a spec. manifold serves no purpose unless it is either mandatory OR outperforms existing manifolds enough to make it's use *competitively* necessary. As long as existing manifolds are allowed to run along side and perform even *possibly* better than the spec. manifold, we have not accomplished much. If it clearly outperforms existing manifolds we could allow both to run, but essentially everyone would convert anyway so I don't see much point in this. If over time modified VW manifolds were allowed and could eventually be made to outperform the spec. manifold we'd be right back where we started. I can see a year overlap or so, but the less the better. I think requiring it at the Runoffs the first year would be a good idea.

The idea of using increasing sized restrictors as required to stay ahead of the VW manifolds might work but has it's own set of problems. How much ahead should you stay to be "fair", and how would you know you were there? You might end up with a situation where the restrictor plated spec. manifold was better (say better low end) and another situation where the modified VW part was better (say better top end). Where are we then? Now you need both manifolds to compete: worst of all worlds...

One key is to make a spec. manifold's cost "disappear" within the annual budget it takes to race Nationally. To me once you do that, the arguments become philosophical rather than financial. Oh, and the next year you don't even have the one time expense if you don't want it. The argument that people will buy multiple manifolds to get a better one isn't completely out of line and we could choose to try to legislate against that, but as long as the performance range is small enough, the difference will be small enough to discourage this. Buy a new set of tires rather than 2 more manifolds or go to another race weekend for more seat time, whatever.

I believe the primary goal is to stop encouraging/requiring the purchase of (a series of) new high $ modified manifolds in order to stay competitive.

Of course making it mandatory also makes it harder to sell the idea to some people

[FVartist]

Unless I'm mistaken there has never been a spec part in FV Nationally. We are a restricted class not a spec class. There have been specified parts that can be modified. A piston is usually lighten and the cylinder is cut to match the piston, trans parts can be configured in many ways, there is a choice of intake valves and you can dress and clean them.

Remember a spec part is just that. You can not modify it or replace it with something else. You must use the part just as you receive it and is required, no choice, no options.

Steve,

Sorry for the confusion.

Bruce

[Speedsport]

I believe the primary goal is to stop encouraging/requiring the purchase of (a series of) new high $ modified manifolds in order to stay competitive

If this is truely the goal, then I ask the question who has purchased "a series" on manifolds to stay competitive? Erik claims he has purchased 3 in 3 years. But he was also involved in the early stages of someone new to making manifolds. But aside from that, who else has felt the need to constantly upgrade their manifold? Any one? As I've said repeatably - I've bought one 5 years ago, and another last year. I had / have no plans on buying another one. If someone gets 5 years out of a $1000 part, that's expensive enough to change the fundemental concept of the FV rules? I certainly don't think so. What about those who just don't care, are happy with what they have, and you're going to force this expense on them?

To answer your question - FV is part spec class, we have specs for pistons, we have specs for intake valves, we have specs for transmission parts. We could have more, we could have less - that is the challenge for the class - how to allow enough rules to keep the cars competitive and allow enough variation to keep it interesting and possible for the home builder to compete.

Not really, those are rules. We also have specs for displacement, wheel base, track width, ect. That doesn't mean they are spec parts.

Unless I'm mistaken there has never been a spec part in FV Nationally. We are a restricted class not a spec class. There have been specified parts that can be modified. A piston is usually lighten and the cylinder is cut to match the piston, trans parts can be configured in many ways, there is a choice of intake valves and you can dress and clean them.

Remember a spec part is just that. You can not modify it or replace it with something else. You must use the part just as you receive it and is required, no choice, no options.

Agreed. FV's are restricted, not spec.

One very interesting thing that he said is to make sure that someone other than the manufacturer owns the Intellectual Property of the manifold because right now they can't get any made.

That is a very scary prospect, and one I raised a while ago. What happens when everyone is outfitted with a spec manifold, and then we only need small batches?


I still find it amusing that no one cares about advantages gained from $5000 data systems.

[Bob Posner]

I've fielded a national effort in fv for 30 years for myself and 18 years for my son Quinn and have bought a total of 3 manifolds,two of which I'm still using. I'm happy with their perrformance and hope to use them for the foreseable future unless someone ("I'm here from the government and I'm gonna help you") decides that my incessant upgrading must stop. Bob Posner

[hardingfv32-1]

I still want to know why we are changing the rules for 2011 if we could be switching to a Spec Manifold? Would it not be wiser too wait on the rule change until the Committee has it's ducks in order?

Can the FV Committee estimate how many manifold will be made illegal for 2011 based on their rule proposal and data that has been collected?

More money will be wasted in this transition than will ever be saved with the implementation of a Spec Manifold.

Brian

[CitationFV21]

Unless I'm mistaken there has never been a spec part in FV Nationally. We are a restricted class not a spec class. There have been specified parts that can be modified. A piston is usually lighten and the cylinder is cut to match the piston, trans parts can be configured in many ways, there is a choice of intake valves and you can dress and clean them.

Remember a spec part is just that. You can not modify it or replace it with something else. You must use the part just as you receive it and is required, no choice, no options.

Steve,

Sorry for the confusion.

Bruce

When FV started, it was a "spec" class. Parts had to be bought through VW dealers and were not able to be modified - how many remember the rocker debates? You went down and went through cams, and cranks and picked out the best ones. Frank Schultheis wrote guides on what could or could not be done. Even "spec" parts can be blueprinted, if that is the spirit of the rules.

We now allow parts that are dimensionally or functionally the same as existing parts (drums for example). But with manifolds you have to find an origional part and modify it, there are no alternatives. So as the number of parts goes down, the price goes up. You then either allow modifications to even out performance or have to deal with the variations in other ways. A "spec" manifold could be an alternative, just like we have alternative drums.

Again, the question is how many "spec" parts do you want. The only true "spec" cars are those run in the school series. Even "Spec" Miata really isnt.....

ChrisZ

[brian]

Just to add to what Bob Posner said, 32 years in the class, 4 manifolds. Last one purchased, 1995. I think we all need to step away, catch our breath and think twice about making people spend money for any mandatory reason.

SF a region of 5000 members saw their regional program, one of the largest in the nation, drop nearly 30% or 1200 entries.

[jpetillo]

ChrisZ, Mike & Others, thanks for the response about whether FV is a spec series - partially or in whole. I see it as restricted, and not spec, at this time - just my interpretation of the word, perhaps. Pulling from some of what you (ChrisZ) wrote, while trying not to take what you said out of context,...

[T]hat is the challenge for the class - how to allow enough rules to keep the cars competitive and allow enough variation to keep it interesting and possible for the home builder to compete.

I mostly agree with this.

My reading of the rules is that someone should NOT be able to get a competitive advantage by pushing the envelope of the rules.

I think that the restrictions provided by the rules are to provide a means to this end. But I don't see the rules suggesting that racers not push to the envelope of the rules. I'd suggest that every national racer either pushes the envelope of the rules or is not competitive. That being said the point is not to cross outside the envelope of the rules.

But a better prepared car - better alignment, better engine tuning, better tire management - can lead to an legitimate advantage. But if there is one manifold, or one head, or one ring and pinion that is superior or that you have to spend an abnormal amount to compete, then there is a problem.

Agreed. Right now the debate seems to be whether we have such a problem as a result of the manifolds.

Thanks for the response, John

[CitationFV21]

I think that the restrictions provided by the rules are to provide a means to this end. But I don't see the rules suggesting that racers not push to the envelope of the rules. I'd suggest that every national racer either pushes the envelope of the rules or is not competitive. That being said the point is not to cross outside the envelope of the rules.

Which is why the rules need to be crystal clear (no fuzzy lines or openings to push the rules). That is also why if someone steps through a loophole, it is okay to close the loophole, then decide if we want to backtrack (as was done with the carb rule in the 90's), or move forward (as with the offset bushings).

Right now the debate is how to close the loophole. Eric started this thread as offering a spec manifold. Other have said we need to put more stringent regulations on existing manifolds. I am open to either, but I am guessing even if we went forward with a spec manifold it might be 2 years away.

So what are we doing now to get through 2010 and 2011? If we put tighter regulations on the manifold, will the need for a spec manifold go away? I think that is a more prudent course with the spec manifold being a back up plan. For the majority of drivers, tires are a more important issue, but I can see how the manifold is important to the national championship drivers.

ChrisZ

[jpetillo]

Chris, we're in agreement. It also seems that you and Brian H. are asking exactly the questions we need answers to.

John

[Fos]

I wasn't going to post until Chris brought up the carb thing in the 90s.

I was caught in the middle of that whole carb thing. I think I was the only one protested for it. I'm greatly relieved it was decided it was illegal. I think it is prudent to close any glaring loopholes to prevent the
carb thing (drilling out the idle boss)
tranny thing (how far did we take the gear coating?)
head thing (what ever happened to the welded head thing?) this one really pissed me off
and now intake thing (dinkusses 'whereever')

I am 100% behind better definition of a legal intake. I.E.-- the movement behind putting dimensions in the GCR. I think all intakes can be made legal if they are found 'out of spec'. I am not apposed to a spec manifold either. We will run out of parts.

We should be able to 'tinker', but we shouldn't have carte blanche...

My 3 cents

[Matt King]

It seems like a lot of people are looking at this as an either/or proposition, as in either tighten the existing manifold rules or proceed towards a "spec" intake. But ever since the Runoffs meeting, I've been in favor of a two-pronged approach. First, tighten the existing rules to stem further development on manifolds, while concurrently researching the development of an alternate manifold. If the alternate part is designed properly, it can co-exist with the current generation of manifolds (at least those that make the cut of the rules revision), let racers who haven't yet purchased a latest-generation manifold "catch up" in performance with a much more cost-effective part, and provide a long-term solution to the problem of a diminishing supply of original parts. I can't see how that approach would not be satisfactory to everyone except manifold builders who want to continually develop new products.

[rphillips]

Hi Ray,

I've composed about 5 different responses here and erased them all before hitting submit.
I need to wait until after tomorrow night's committee meeting.

Sorry

Bruce,

It has been a week since the last commitee meeting. I think the question that I posed is a very legitimate one. Do you have an answer? Do you think a spec manifold should be implemented for 2011? If so, then I would like to hear more about your proposed evaluation/implementation plan.

Thanks,

Ray