Wheel cover ban

[hardingfv32-1]

There is a rumor going around that there is an effort to ban the inside wheel covers found on the Runoffs winning car. Are any insiders willing to make a statement on the status of this effort? Is there going to be any competitor input or is this just going to be a one sided affair?

Brian

[SR Racing]

Were there protests? If not, unless someone writes the CRB, there will be no action on it.
Since Mike made it through tech intact, they are legal.

[hardingfv32-1]

I am sure the CRB has been contacted, possibly as early as the Runoffs!

Brian

[FV80]

Please see the Sept. Committee Minutes.
interchange/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=4882

Steve, FV80

[FV80]

I am sure the CRB has been contacted, possibly as early as the Runoffs!

Brian

At least 2 members of the CRB were present during the Runoffs and personally observed the items in question. Mike took his car to tech in advance to confirm legality and a member of the CRB was present at the time.
Steve, FV80

[satterley_sr]

What happened to if it's not in the rules don't do it. I hear you can now buy the wheel covers for $1200. Ban them!!

[hardingfv32-1]

Or you could make them yourself!

Brian

[smsazzy]

Why ban wheel covers? We haven't banned $1200 manifolds, $700 tires (wheel covers last significantly longer than tires), $1200 exhaust systems, or $2500 data systems.

Why is it that when someone outside the traditional FV inner-circle comes up with an innovation people scream and want to ban it?

I still believe that if Kohanski had come out with "monster-mannies" they would still be legal.

I can't help but wonder if Fred Clark had built the Caracal with wheel covers if anyone would have even thought twice.....

[satterley_sr]

I never supported any of these either but I'm stuck spending $$$$$$$$ to try to keep up. Those wheel covers won't make Vee racing any more fun it's just more expense which eliminates a few more potential or existing competitors.

[Mike Kochanski]

I still believe that if Kohanski had come out with "monster-mannies" they would still be legal......[/quote]

That is an uninformed statement. You need to go back and look through the minutes of the FV Committee. I did not attend most of the FV Committee sessions when manifolds were discussed. Maybe you should do some research and ask this question. Where did the CRB get their dimensions to define a legal manifold? I agreed to the dimensions but I did not write them. I did not make intake manifolds for two years while the legality was at issue. If they were deemed legal, I would have no problem making them.

Regards
Mike

[smsazzy]

Mike,

Please understand, I meant no disrespect towards you with that. I'm not saying you had anything to do with making them illegal. My statement was more to make a point that there is an established group of folks in the class who seem to be celebrated for their innovation. Greats like Bill Noble, Fred Clark, Bob Lybarger, Steve Pastore, etc. I count you among those folks.

My point was simply that if one of those folks had come up with the innovation, the masses would have accepted it much more easily. If anytng, feel complimented that I consider you a legend.

[brian]

I mentioned on Apex that there is a process for dealing with issues such as this. It might have been desirable to have had someone write a formal protest at the Runoffs but that did not happen. Sometimes, gossip is easier than protesting.

If you do not want this, or any other item in the class, write a letter to the CRB and say so. The volunteers who manage our rules for us cannot read minds, it's up to all of us to help and follow the process.

[problemchild]

Chuck Brewer had similiar fibreglass covers on his car almost 2 decades ago. He must be the "genious".

I agree with Dave S. Wheel covers do absolutely nothing to enhance the FV experience for FV racers in any way what so ever. It has nothing to do with them being legal or not. Make them illegal before a another single FV racer spends 1 cent or 1 minute of time on this issue.

All this wasted energy could be spent on activities to lower costs, increase accessability, or just promote the class. Typical of some of the selfish actions of the supposed elders of this class.

BTW ...... Mike K, as any of the manifold makers, was quite capable of making monster mannies before there was such a scam. He chose not to. He was servicing the FV community, not screwing it!

[hardingfv32-1]

BTW ...... Mike K, as any of the manifold makers, was quite capable of making monster mannies before there was such a scam. He chose not to. He was servicing the FV community, not screwing it!

This is BS. NO OTHER manifold maker had the manufacturing capabilities to produce manifolds as large as the Monster Mannie. Fact... there is not one example of a manifold out there built under the rules of that time that is larger or even close to a Monster Mannie. Mike K did not make manifolds for two years because he did not have the capabilities to compete with my product. Why else would he fail to provide a competitive product when they needed it? He and all the other manifold makers used their only option and had the rules changed. Those rules protected them for a process they could not duplicate.

And do not claim they were saving there customers money. The new rules still require an updated manifold if you want to be competitive. This was not about saving money.

Brian

[smsazzy]

BTW ...... Mike K, as any of the manifold makers, was quite capable of making monster mannies before there was such a scam. He chose not to. He was servicing the FV community, not screwing it!

That's funny. I understand the going rate for a Monster Mannie was around $1000-1200.

Two weeks before that, if you called around to buy a BIG Kohanski it was what..... $900-1000?

Are you saying that if Monster Mannies were the same $900-1000 you would not have objected? Is that because you were already in possession of one of those manifolds? If you want to compete, you have to spend the money.

Why, oh why, did we not vote for the spec manifold I will never know. Instead of a $400 spec manifold, we all had to go update our manifolds to remain competitive.

[FV80]

FWIW, the INITIAL price of the "Monster Mannie" was $1600.
Steve, FV80

[smsazzy]

Steve - The check I wrote before the 2008 Runoffs was for $1100. Maybe I got a sweetheart deal because Brian Harding was feeling generous that day.

[problemchild]

BTW ...... Mike K, as any of the manifold makers, was quite capable of making monster mannies before there was such a scam. He chose not to. He was servicing the FV community, not screwing it!

This is BS. NO OTHER manifold maker had the manufacturing capabilities to produce manifolds as large as the Monster Mannie. Fact... there is not one example of a manifold out there built under the rules of that time that is larger or even close to a Monster Mannie. Mike K did not make manifolds for two years because he did not have the capabilities to compete with my product. Why else would he fail to provide a competitive product when they needed it? He and all the other manifold makers used their only option and had the rules changed. Those rules protected them for a process they could not duplicate.

And do not claim they were saving there customers money. The new rules still require an updated manifold if you want to be competitive. This was not about saving money.

Brian

There was no need to build illegal manifolds so any claim to technology is irrelevent.

[problemchild]

BTW ...... Mike K, as any of the manifold makers, was quite capable of making monster mannies before there was such a scam. He chose not to. He was servicing the FV community, not screwing it!

That's funny. I understand the going rate for a Monster Mannie was around $1000-1200.

Two weeks before that, if you called around to buy a BIG Kohanski it was what..... $900-1000?

Are you saying that if Monster Mannies were the same $900-1000 you would not have objected? Is that because you were already in possession of one of those manifolds? If you want to compete, you have to spend the money.

Why, oh why, did we not vote for the spec manifold I will never know. Instead of a $400 spec manifold, we all had to go update our manifolds to remain competitive.

You're confusing market value of legal components with screwing people by introducing new product to exploit a rule interpretation accepted by our community ..... which caused this whole mess which has probably shortened the lifespan of FV by a decade. You guys keep bringing this disgusting period of FV into discussion. Harding has his axe to grind, and brings up this topic, trying to draw parallels, still trying to sway those who are angry about the mess he caused us all. It is a shame that after a fine race between two champions, Harding makes this a topic for the racing world to dwell on.

Please, just ban the damned CF whizzy bits, and find positive ways to decrease costs, increase accessability, and promote FV.

[GrapeFarmerAl]

Exactly what does the inner wheel cover, cover. Where is the vertical plane of this device. Can someone post a photo, drawing or sketch...

[butchdeer]

I don't know how the Wheel cover issue got hijacked into manifolds. I don't thonk Mike K ever charged $1000 for one but retailers are free to take whatever markup they want.
In 1983 Ray Caldwell told me that he thought the sucess of FV eas in part due to the fact that it allowed inovation but at a slow pace. (Compaired to say F1 at the extreme other end of the spectrum). The fact that there is a place for people like Mike & Al Varicins,Brian Harding, and hosts of others over the years(including the competing tire companies) makes it different from a spec class. If you want fixed costs and no changes try a spec class. (unfortunately evn they change with the times).
Butch

[smsazzy]

I don't know how the Wheel cover issue got hijacked into manifolds. I don't thonk Mike K ever charged $1000 for one but retailers are free to take whatever markup they want.
In 1983 Ray Caldwell told me that he thought the sucess of FV eas in part due to the fact that it allowed inovation but at a slow pace. (Compaired to say F1 at the extreme other end of the spectrum). The fact that there is a place for people like Mike & Al Varicins,Brian Harding, and hosts of others over the years(including the competing tire companies) makes it different from a spec class. If you want fixed costs and no changes try a spec class. (unfortunately evn they change with the times).
Butch

I couldn't agree more. I think innovation is good. Lost in all this is that you don't need to spend $1200 to make some wheel covers if youo really want to. You could make them out of fiberglass or even aluminum. Nobody complained about cutting out some aluminum and putting it between the axle and their leading/trailing arms. This is basically the same thing. All you need is something the diameter of the wheel with a radius on it to keep from flexing. It isn't the end of FV.....

[FV80]

... All you need is something the diameter of the wheel with a radius on it to keep from flexing. It isn't the end of FV.....

Stephen,
How much are you planning to charge for the ones YOU build ??
Steve, FV80
PS - for those who didn't get to see them in person...
http://wedgeracing.com/2012/wheel_pants.html

Some REALLY REALLY nice work on these...

[problemchild]

But why do any of us need them? Will this attract one single competitor to FV? Will it reduce costs to any single competitor? Will it make any FV racer safer? Will it make any single FV driver fit in their car better?
We don't! No. No. No. No.

But why do any of us need them? Will they cost competitors money? Will somebody make money? Will there be a perception to some competitors that they will improve performance?
We don't! Yes. Yes. Yes.

Just dealing with all this crap is such a waste of the FV community's energy, time, and resources.

Please, if you want to innovate, just ban the damned CF whizzy bits, and find innovative ways to decrease costs, increase accessability, and promote FV.

[smsazzy]

Steve - If they stay legal, I will certainly make a set. I think it a a cool idea. Not out of Carbon Fiber though. Probably Aluminum or Fiberglass.

Greg - I seem to remember you posting all kinds of really cool stuff you had developed for your car but were unable to use because of weight. Were all those innovative development ideas you had evil as well?

Like this cockpit adjustable rear droop limiter. [ external image ]

Or your cockpit adjustable external front roll bar? (weighs only 6 pounds)

I can't believe you would try to kill FV by developing a part that is going to require all of us to immediately go out and spend money. Will this cockpit adjustable external roll bar attract one single competitor to FV? Will it reduce cost to any single competitor? Will it make any FV racer safer? Will it make any single FV driver fit in their car better? No of course not.

Will they cost competitors money? Will somebody make money? Will there be a perception to some competitors that they will improve performance? Yes, Yes(presumably you), Yes.

The innovation allowed in racing is part of the fun.