FasTrack FV Final Manifold Rules Proposal

[garykittell]

The CRB has proposed a final rule in the July FasTrack for member input. We suggest that you respond by going to http://www.crbscca.com and cutting and pasting this language into your request. When you get to the crb site you'll be asked for your information plus:
Category: F-SR
Class: FV
Title: FV Manifold Rules Change
Request: Cut and paste language in quotes below

"I support the FV manifold rules change providing that new item# 2 that refers to a maximum bend O.D of 1.070" is changed to read:
At NO POINT in the bends of the horizontal tube should the average O.D. exceed 1.070". Measurements will be taken four (4) times rotating around the circumference of the tube and averaged."


This averaging language was agreed to by all of the manifold builders and included in letter #904 referenced in the July FasTrack posting.
Averaging measurements is consistent with the current GCR language for the down tube and cross tube. You as a competitor should be concerned because as written in the FasTrack proposal any location that exceeds 1.070" will make your manifold illegal. Some examples:
a) An egg shaped manifold ( which most are in the bend area) that is 1.071 in one dimension but considerably smaller in the other would be illegal even though it's cross section (flow ability) is much less than a perfectly round 1.070 manifold.
b) Dimensions can grow or shrink as a manifold is sprung onto the engine.
c) A manifold who's max dimension is legal at room temperature may not be once it heats up sitting in impound.
e) Manifolds are sized using steel balls driven up the interior. This can leave the odd "bump" that would make your existing manifold illegal by the rule posted in Fast Track.
These are several of the reasons why your manifold might not pass tech if the proposed rule is adopted as written and why we believe it is in every FV competitor's best interest to respond to the FasTrack proposed change by cutting and pasting the response in quotes above.

[cendiv37]

The FV committee supports the proposed rule change as it currently reads in the Fastrack. The measurement method and determination of legality needs to be as straight forward and foolproof as possible. The crb did make some changes to our recommendations, but we support the final proposal.

It is the opinion of most of the FV committee that taking multiple measurements in the bends is just asking for trouble. If you haven't tried it yourself, you need to do so to understand the problem for yourself. Every procedural error you make when trying to take a measurement with a caliper will lead to a higher measurement than the true OD at that point. Taking multiple measurements around any location of the tubing in the bend to determine an average is just asking to get a measured average that is higher than the real average. The more measurements you ask tech to make, the more likely they are to get an erroneous high measurement. One of the main reasons the change was made to the rules in 1997 (that started this whole enlarging the bends thing) was because it was so hard to make accurate measurements in that region of the manifold.

Taking multiple measurements in the straight section of the horizontal tubing does not present this problem to nearly as large an extent, and the current averaging process and limits will be retained in the areas between the down tube and the bends.

To Gary's other points:

Point a) Egg shaped manifolds: Yes some are egg shaped, some, intentionally it seems. It is not clear whether or not some amount of ovality could be an advantage. Why encourage it? It is clear from the data we gathered that in general, manifold makers can make relatively round manifolds. Yes, a 1.070" no-go limit might to require a smaller target (ball size) to make sure the no-go limit is not exceeded, but probably not. Also, the committee has been assured that small, localized areas of a manifold can be quite easily persuaded back to a slightly smaller size. In the end, a no-go limit will be easier for the competitor, manifold maker and tech inspectors to confirm legality of a manifold.

Point b) Dimensional changes installed vs. uninstalled: 1st, these will be very small. Second, I think we can assume (and we could explicitly put it in the rules if it's not already there) that all final dimensions will be taken with the manifold removed from the engine. This is essentially a requirement to enforce even the current rules what with multiple measurement averaging measurements along the horizontal tube and all. The new 9.25" limit on flange height will absolutely require manifold removal to measure. I suspect the only manifolds to be fully measured (maybe) to the current rules are the Runoff's winning manifolds. It will be completely impossible to do an averaging method in the bends on a manifold installed on an engine. Try it! A no-go might measurement might be possible if the gauge was carefully designed. At least a no-go gauge can be passed over most on the bend on an installed manifold and a decision made as to whether it needs to be removed for further measurements.

Point c) Room temperature vs. impound temperature: How is this different for a no-go limit vs. an averaging method? No, tech does not bring a temperature controlled room to each event, even the Runoffs. If this were a real issue, it would apply to every dimensional limit on every part on every car that competes in SCCA.

Point e) This is a valid point and might need to be dealt with in the rules by allowing small areas to exceed the no-go dimension. In the end it comes down to how close the manifold maker wants to cut it, and how big the bumps are. As stated above, small bumps can be persuaded back to within the target dimension. Large bumps will put a manifold out of spec, even if an averaging method is used.

In the end, I agree with Gary on at least one thing. Do write a letter to the crb expressing your opinion on the proposal, whether pro or con!

Consider the effect of the proposed (ADDITIONAL) manifold dimensional limits on FV as a whole and on your current manifold's legality under the proposed new rules. Send a letter to the crb and let them know what you think of the proposal, again, pro or con. If needed, make any specific recommendations for changes to the proposal that you believe are in the interest of the class.

[Rickydel]

Just curious. In all the discussions about measuring manifolds, was measuring a manifolds total volume ever suggested?
There is only one way to do it. Only so many cc's will fit. Kinda like combustion chamber volume.

Ricky del

[problemchild]

With all due respect to the committee, their support (as a political group) is irrelevent at this point. They could have supported the manifold makers proposal 8 monthes ago as the Runoff FV drivers meeting voted and all this manifold BS would be history by now. Hopefully, the FV community will now voice their opinion and we can move forward.

IMO, this proposal is much better than any others we have seen since the manifold makers proposal. I also have concerns regarding point B as mentioned by Gary above. I believe the 1.070 no-go spec takes the legal responsibility from the manifold maker and transfers it to the car owner. Everytime, that the manifold gets removed, replaced, tweeked, used on another engine .... even every heat cycle .... the manifold shape will change slightly. This is why the early FV rule-makers chose the method of averaging diameter and why the rest of the manifold is measured that way. Those of us who measured up manifolds and submitted data, know that the older the manifold, the more irregular it tended to be. I was generally measuring up 10+ yr old manifolds, and was seeing .050 varience in the curves on some. The curved section is the weak link and absorbs most of the forces applied to the entire manifold. If any section should be determined on average, it would be the curved section.

IMO, if the rule specifies the maximum avge value (as Gary suggests), any manifold that is legal when made, will stay legal (in normal use). If the rule specifies a maximum value as (proposed) then a legal manifold can become illegal, in a totally innocent manner. If the proposal is accepted without Gary's slight tweek, then I believe "intake manifold maintenance" will become a routine part of FV racing as re will occasionally need to get our manifolds "re-rounded". Measuring up a FV intake manifold is not a simple task. Making one small portion of the measuring procedure more simple is of no benefit if it increases costs.

I think that Gary's recommendation is good, but please voice your views to the CRB. We need to have a rule in place for 2011.

[smsazzy]

Just curious. In all the discussions about measuring manifolds, was measuring a manifolds total volume ever suggested?
There is only one way to do it. Only so many cc's will fit. Kinda like combustion chamber volume.

Ricky del

I would think this would cause a run on the smallest/shortest manifolds available. If I can find a manifold that is a bit shorter than another, I can ball size it that much bigger to meet the cc requirement. That would create a whole new run on manifolds.

[Matt King]

I could see having a maximum volume as an ADDITIONAL check, but not as a substitute for maximum external dimensions as proposed, as having that alone would open the door to clever and expensive development of alternately shaped tubing. The analogy to a cylinder head port is exactly why you would not want to allow that.

[problemchild]

Bump

This thread should be seen my everybody. Please respond to the CRB.

[jpetillo]

I think it's helpful for this stuff to get discussed on the forum somewhat before letters get sent. Reading other people's opinions and learning what's behind the different viewpoints helps me formulate my opinion, which is always in flux.

[G.B.]

Does this rule clarification mean reasonable priced competitive inlet manifolds with be available to all?

Or will competitive manifolds remain in the $1000+ range which can only be detrimental to the long term future of the formula?

[FV80]

This is not a "clarification" - it is a (proposed) rules CHANGE. The hope is that it will stop the escalation of manifold performance that requires top runners to buy new manifolds every year in order to keep up. If this goes through, it is likely that the cost of manifolds would at least stop going UP by leaps and bounds. It would also mean that, over time, the cost would come down somewhat - not necessarily for newly produced manifolds, but the older ones would remain more competitive and therefore effectively the total cost to competitors would come down ... or something like that

The only hope for "inexpensive" manifolds was with the Spec or 'Control' Manifold, but that was shot down by the membership a couple of months ago.
Steve, FV80

[jpetillo]

With regard to the cost escalation, I think a manifold manufactured with an average bend cross sectional size as the metric would be cheaper than one manufactured for a max (go/nogo) size as the metric. If we allow an average size metric, then a manifold maker that builds an oval cross sectional area that approaches the round cross sectional area would stop when a certain cross sectional area results even though one dimension would be larger than the specified max size. If the manifold maker has to stop when a single maximum dimension is reached, then they would be compelled to keep working the other dimension until it's as round as possible to make the best manifold - the one with the biggest cross section. That sounds like it would escalate the price and there would definitely be those that want the extra effort of that max round pipe. And as they keep working the other direction, they risk breaking pipes, further escalating the price. What would be the counter arguments?

[FV80]

John,
I think you'll find that the cost of a manifold is based considerably more on 'what the market will bear' than 'what it actually costs to produce'. If the rules are such that it is almost impossible to measure the manifold on the car, then the ONLY time one will get measured is ... win the Runoffs (maybe) or .. FILE A PROTEST. If a manifold check can be quickly and easily done on the car, then it will probably get checked occasionally in impound by Tech as a routine post race thing. Personally, I think that is better for the class. The group that is pushing the changing of the proposed rule (to the averaging method), IMHO, would do a better service to the CLASS to ask for an increase in the allowed dimension, rather than change the proposed method of measurement. That makes things easier to check and therefore tends to level the playing field better. The Committee originally recommended a larger dimension for just the reasons that you brought up. There is NOTHING we can do to keep a builder from getting as close as he dares to whatever rule is in force. The closer he/she gets, the more risk they take. Some even interpret the rules differently and DECIDE that they can do things that others can't ... or haven't. If it can't be relatively easily checked in Tech, then ... well, you know. In the end, we are TRYING to get a rule in place that is CLEAR in all respects so that someone can't spend more money and gain an advantage - at least in the manifold area ... for the moment.

Whatever YOUR opinion, be sure to express it to the CRB on their site.

Steve, FV80

[problemchild]

If averaging the values on the down tube and straight section of the horizontal tube is an appropriate measuring technique, why is it inappropriate to measure the curved section of the horizontal tube the same way?

Making the spec larger just moves the line. Nothing will change other than more current manifolds will need to be updated .... then everytime a manifold gets installed, the individual car owner runs the risk that he has distorted the manifold and now is illegal.

The committee members had two years to find a solution to this issue. Neither the membership or CRB supported their recommendations. It is time to move on. Gary's suggestion to follow the manifold makers proposal is a good one. It is absolutely "in the best service to the class". It is in fact, the only solution that has been supported by a vote of FV drivers, most of whom left the Runoffs FV workshop meeting believing that the issue was resolved.

[jpetillo]

Steve, thanks for the response. Those are good points. However, my guess is that we have little reason to be concerned at the regional level - just my opinion. And as far as the runoffs go, a go/nogo measurement being done on the car would not be sufficient because it can't guarantee that the max dimension is found. The manifolds would have to be removed to find the real max points.

With regard to limiting the development of manifolds, if we go with a go/nogo measurement on the car, development will be made in the areas that are not measured. I think that's what got us here in the first place - not a good path to head towards again.

At the regional level where it's suggested that a go/nogo may be useful, if a competitor gets a manifold found to not be compliant with a go/nogo, I'd expect that competitor would ask that all manifolds be measured properly in that area to be fair and then they all have to come off anyway.

If a go/nogo is the way to go, why aren't the other measurements done that way? I'd suggest that the rules for the manifold be rewritten (perhaps not on this go around) to have that be the way for all appropriate measurements for consistency.

What bothers me about what you mentioned regarding the choice of the 1.070" dimension is that the rules have a number chosen for one measurement (the averaging technique) and we are suggesting using a measurement technique (go/nogo) chosen for a different measurement. That doesn't sound like we have our act together. Let's go with one measurement and measurement technique combination and be consistent. We've come a long way to not get this right.

It sounds like the argument is that a go/nogo will allow rapid partial checking that can be done often vs. a more accurate measurement that would allow less expensive manifolds where the cross sectional area is what we would effectively be after checking. It's not an easy decision.

Either way, let's get the numbers consistent with the measurement technique. Is it 1.070" with averaging vs. 1.010" with go/nogo?

By the way, Greg is making a lot of sense. The go/nogo may be easier to do, but it will keep the class in flux in this area for exactly the reasons he mentions. The averaging method is simply fair. That's hard to argue with.

[Dietmar]

John:

I will let Stevan reply since you directed the questions to him, but for clarification and before this discussion gets too far off course, the CRB has suggested a 1.070 measurement using a go-no go gauge. Another suggestion being presented on this site is to adopt the 1.070" measurement BUT use a system of averaging. There is no 1.010 measurement being considered- think your fingers might have slipped on the keyboard. Originally, the Ad Hoc Committee suggested 1.100" as a number.

Also, just to give a brief history of events:

as stated in another post, the original rules makers used averaging over the entire manifold. In or around 1997, a select group suggested ( and convinced SCCA ) that averaging was not appropriate and could not be done without much error in the area of the manifold bends. The measurement for the bends was then removed and the size of the bends instantly started creeping up to where they are today. As did the cost! Now, it is being suggested that averaging is again the best way to measure this area in the bends.

Dietmar

[problemchild]

Dietmar said ..... "In or around 1997, a select group suggested ( and convinced SCCA ) that averaging was not appropriate and could not be done without much error in the area of the manifold bends. The measurement for the bends was then removed and the size of the bends instantly started creeping up to where they are today."

Please provide names, dates, and documentation to support this story. If any version of this story happened, why was the rulebook not changed. I was racing in NEDIV, the Runoffs, and Canada at that time and was never told of this meeting and that there was a rule change. Until two years ago, I was only aware that the horizontal tube had a spec, whether the straight portion or curved. If this alleged secret meeting took place and had no official application, then it really is irrelevent and prejudicial to an open and fair discussion now.

There was an open official meeting dealing with this topic last September where the FV drivers supported the proposal put forth by the experienced technical experts that have supported the class for decades. The proposal was ignored by the committee. Now we find out that an alleged unofficial secret meeting in the 90s, is more relevent. Unbelievable!

[Dietmar]

Greg:

Since you feel that I am telling a story, as you put it, here is the text from the 96 and 98 GCR:

96 under ALLOWED. Item # 10

...provided the following dimensions are not exceeded:

Down tube---1.140 OD
Horizontal tube---0.994 OD

THESE DIMENSIONS SHALL BE AN AVERAGE OF AT LEAST FOUR (4) MEASUREMENTS AT EQUAL INTERVALS AROUND THE TUBE AT ANY POINT.

98 GCR: Item 10

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 (4) times, rotating around the circumference of the tube and averaged. Averaged down tube dimension shakll not exceed 1.140 in. OD

Horizontal Tube: The horizontal tube shall bemeasured at four (4) 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 conection. Each measurement will be taken four times, rotating around the circumference of the tube and averaged. The average horizontal tube dimension shall not exceed 0.994 in OD

I do NOT have the 97 GCR, but it is apparent that there was a change, and since the 98 GCR did not indicate that it was a new rule ( as indicated by black bars along the side of the text), it MUST have taken place in 97. I too was racing at that time, and I have a letter to SCCA stating my objections and concerns with this rule change and the fact that it would open up a can of worms that would not be in the best interest of the class.

On a personal note, I have to say that I do not appreciate the implication that I fabricate stories to make a point.


Dietmar

[problemchild]

You are supplying a story with reasoning that is your conjecture. I was not at any meeting nore were you. One can conject that those with input in 2010 have different views than they did in 1997. One can conject that some won't. The debatable conjecture that the curves were open for "anything" is why we've had this mess of the past two years.

Dwelling on 1997, and disregarding the technical input from today, is where this circle keeps going. Gary is promoting the rule proposal from 2009. I am sorry that I do not understand why three committee members distrust rules proposed by a group of competing manifold makers and supported by a group of competing Runoff drivers and some regional/national non-Runoff drivers. Taking that proposal to the general membership would have been the logical step. Instead, we go around in circles and off on tangents, and Gary has to speak up .... "What happened to the rule proposal agreed to last year?"

[smsazzy]

I personally, would like to thank the committee member for doing what they believe to be in the best interest of the class. They seem to be among the select few that will actually take action in the form of proposals and input rather than just going off on tangents on the internet.

I do think that Greg has some valuid concerns, however. I would love it if we could get back to the facts of the discussion rather than personal attacks and side bar conversations.

I agree that the measurement techniques should be consistent. I do not think difficulty to measure should be a concern, since in my 4 or 5 years racing, the only place my manifold has ever even been looked it is at the runoffs. That is likely also the only place that a tech inspector would notice if my manifold was 1.5" in diameter. (Although my competitors would likely notice.)

[FVartist]

The most important thing to do is send in your response to the CRB.

I personally wanted the original proposal presented to us at last years Runoff meeting. That is why I sent in mine with the added change by Gary Kittell. I reasoned those with the most knowledge, the manifold constructors, also thought that averaging was best.

There have been many differing opinions expressed, You may agree or disagree, but do not lose sight of the main objective. You must send in your response.

Bruce

[Erik Oseth]

You can add any wording you want to your letter but the bottom line is your letter says yes or no.It is not a debate its a vote.

Erik

[jpetillo]

John:

I will let Stevan reply since you directed the questions to him, but for clarification and before this discussion gets too far off course, the CRB has suggested a 1.070 measurement using a go-no go gauge. Another suggestion being presented on this site is to adopt the 1.070" measurement BUT use a system of averaging. There is no 1.010 measurement being considered- think your fingers might have slipped on the keyboard. Originally, the Ad Hoc Committee suggested 1.100" as a number.

Also, just to give a brief history of events:

as stated in another post, the original rules makers used averaging over the entire manifold. In or around 1997, a select group suggested ( and convinced SCCA ) that averaging was not appropriate and could not be done without much error in the area of the manifold bends. The measurement for the bends was then removed and the size of the bends instantly started creeping up to where they are today. As did the cost! Now, it is being suggested that averaging is again the best way to measure this area in the bends.

Dietmar

Dietmar, yes, that was a slip of the finger. I meant to type 1.100" for the Ad Hoc Committee suggested measurement in my text. Thanks for catching that. By the way, even though I responded to Stevan, since I posted it to the forum any response is welcome.

I agree with Steve (smsazzy) that the difficulty of the measurement should not be the driving force behind going to the go/nogo. There are a lot of difficult measurements and tests for rules compliance.

The fact that we may be coming around full circle with "it is being suggested that averaging is again the best way to measure this area in the bends." to me means that the solution we had was not good enough and we need better. That's fine. History is good, and it tells us what has worked and what hasn't. Perhaps foregoing the bend measurement wasn't the right choice back then because in the long term it seems to have led us here. The Ad Hoc Committee asked each of us to do this multi-point and angle measurement and came up with a recommendation based on our measurements. So, how hard could it be for a tech inspector?!

Bruce & Erik, thanks for the reminder to send in our votes and opinions! John

[garykittell]

It might help the discussion if people understand the current context of this situation. Fred Clark is the CRB liaison who was my regular contact on the CRB's rule making process that lead to the current FasTrack posting.
In unmistakable terms I was told that when the new rule is finalized, the CRB is done with FV manifolds. From that I believe that it will be a long time, if ever, before any more changes or adjustments are made. Those who think that there will be time, inclination or the political will to revisit this issue in the future if we don't like the results could be sadly disappointed.
When I questioned what could be done about the NO-GO language posted on FasTrack, I was told that the only opportunity to get the averaging language that was in our letter #904 reconsidered was through the members' CRB letter responses to the FasTrack posting.
Letter #904 is the collective work of all the manifold builders that began at the 2009 Runoffs meeting. It's recommendations, that include the 1.070"bend OD, are an integrated proposal. A key part is that ODs will be measured by averaging, the same process that the GCR currently specifies for the down and cross tubes. For whatever reason, what the CRB has posted to FasTrack calls for a No-GO measurement that has the potential to make a significant number of manifolds illegal and to subject competitors to sudden death disqualifications, often through no fault of their own.
Again we suggest that you contact the CRB and tell them that you support the new rules as long as ODs are determined by averaging. How to do that is in our original post and is repeated again here:

The CRB has proposed a final rule in the July FasTrack for member input. We suggest that you respond by going to http://www.crbscca.com and cutting and pasting this language into your request. When you get to the CRB site you'll be asked for your member information plus:
Category: F-SR
Class: FV
Title: FV Manifold Rules Change
Request: Cut and paste language in quotes below

"I support the FV manifold rules change providing that new item# 2 that refers to a maximum bend O.D of 1.070" is changed to read:
At NO POINT in the bends of the horizontal tube should the average O.D. exceed 1.070". Measurements will be taken four (4) times rotating around the circumference of the tube and averaged."

[cendiv37]

First the facts...

1996 rules (from my 1996 FCS):

Down tube -- 1.140 inches O.D.
Horizontal tube -- 0.994 inches O.D.

These dimensions shall be an average of at least four (4) measurements at equal intervals around the tube at any point.

1997 rules (from my 1997 FCS, all with black bars in the margin indicating a change from the previous year):

Down Tube: The down tube shall be measured at two different locations within the area between .500" and 2.00" above the horizontal tube. Each measurement shall be taken four (4) times, rotating around the circumference of the tube, and averaged. Averaged dimensions shall not exceed 1.140" O.D.

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 a being between the bend and a point 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 dimensions shall not exceed 0.994 inches O.D.

Now some opinion: It is clear from this change that there was a problem measuring some areas of the manifold by the previous rules (why the heck else did they change the rules???). The changes made very specifically eliminated measuring the curved areas of both the horizontal tube and the down tube. This IS what opened Pandora's box and got us to where we are today. This IS when this change was made. Nothing made up here.

A question: Why are a few manifolds that might exceed a 1.070" no-go limit in the bend more important than the many known manifolds that ARE going to be eliminated by a measurement (whether no-go or average) in the bends even if that limit is set as high as 1.1"? Why are the competitors that own these manifolds (marginal at 1.070" no-go) more important than the competitors with manifolds at 1.1" or even 1.14" (no-go or average)? Is there a bias here against some manifolds and some manifold makers even though ALL of the manifold makers have now violated the "If In Doubt, Don't" principle that some say is at the heart of the problem and the current angst over manifolds. Why is being a little pregnant OK but being a lot pregnant not OK? How about a little equity in our considerations?

Some opinion: The crb has seen fit to set a new dimensional limit on the bend area of the manifolds and to set it in a way that is more easily and more consistently measurable. It is a new standard that is to be applied where there was none before. Some manifolds are not going to pass muster. Get over it. The new rules are meant to stop further escalation. Lets move on and stop trying to penalize some manifold makers and competitors more than others for the same indiscretion.

Another question: Why is it that the only place manifolds are actually measured is at the Runoffs, and even there only one manifold actually gets measured each year?

More Opinion: At normal races they weigh us, they test our fuel, they measure our overall length , etc. etc. but they never actually do a full manifold measurement. Why? Because it would take too long and they have neither the time nor the resources to do it at the typical race. Even at the Runoff's, they actually only use a no-go gauge on our manifolds in impound during the week to screen for obvious violations. If the no-go gauge passes, they certify our manifold as OK and accept our qualifying times, etc. Say what? ONLY the winner's manifold gets a thorough evaluation, and we don't really know exactly what is measured even on that single manifold that actually gets measured each year. WHY don't manifolds get measured more often? Because it is a royal pain in the keister to do it, even by the current rules. I strongly suggest that rules that are hard to enforce are bad rules, period. If we make it harder to fully measure manifolds they will get even less scrutiny, not more!

Edited for late night after a long race weekend posting syndrome...

[brian]

Good points Bruce and congrats on your 2nd. place. I agree completely and am willing to move on and reinstall my 15 year old manifolds Let's go racing.