|
|
Post by Bruce on Nov 2, 2009 19:35:10 GMT -8
It seems that we will race under the current rules, but there is talk of rule changes for manifold, tires, etc. It seems some think if we do nothing we are doomed and the death of the class is nigh. I am from the stability side, where keeping the rules stable keeps the class strong. There have been alot of rule changes in the last 2 years. Some beneficial some not so much, but nothing mandating a change or cost. What is being discussed now may change that. It could eventually require everyone to take a loss and require a purchase. I am speaking of a proposed spec manifold. The loss is your existing manifold would become illegal and you would have to purchase a spec manifold. The other option that was presented by manifold preparer's is that additional measurements would be given and gives the option of upgrading or leaving your existing manifold. I do not know who would be in control of these spec manifolds or who decide who gets which one. I was told they would be superior to those now in use, however, I don't see how that would be possible without access to each and every engine.
|
|
|
|
Post by Take 'em Out Terran on Nov 2, 2009 21:55:06 GMT -8
Are the manifolds the only thing being proposed to be changed? or are there anymore proposals?
|
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Nov 3, 2009 10:06:05 GMT -8
They want to add a restrictor plate with the spec manifold. There might be a proposal for a three (3) piece manifold. There will soon be a proposal for a National spec tire. I personally am opposed to all these.
There is an alternative replacement spindle & carrier ( dog bone) proposal. It does not require you to use, but is an option.
|
|
|
|
Post by brian on Nov 3, 2009 10:56:47 GMT -8
One correction, you will not be required to buy a manifold nor will your existing manifold be illegal unless it's been modified in recent years and exceeds the final rules measurements. There is an idea being floated around about a spec manifold that would be better than existing manifolds but will be made at parity with existing manifolds by using a restrictor plate to duplicate flow to known standards. The spec manifold idea has strength because it will cost only a few hundred dollars compared to alleged thousands. For most of us, we won't be effected. Don't forget everything has to go throught the membership review process and these issues won't come up until next year. Any spec tire proposal, and that's all it is an idea, will not effect what is going on regionally. In SF region, the AR tires would still be legal unless those of us in the region want to change it.
There are many after market items that can be substituted as long as they are essentially the same as stock. Spindles, rear drums are just a couple of examples.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Nov 3, 2009 13:24:56 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Take 'em Out Terran on Nov 3, 2009 20:31:26 GMT -8
Is the proposed spec manifold a re-manufactured part? and how are the proposed spindles any different? (Sorry for lack of knowledge, just figuring things out)
|
|
fv80
Newbie
Posts: 7
|
Post by fv80 on Nov 4, 2009 8:30:50 GMT -8
... in an earlier posting from S. Davis, he did mention the eventual fazing out of existing manifolds. I don't recall saying that. Someone ELSE proposed that that MIGHT be an eventual result, but we are still just looking at the options trying to decide what's best for the class. To answer other questions.. Any Spec Manifold would be a completely newly constructed part - probably of stainless steel tubing similar or possibly identical to that currently in use in Australia. Their parts are all built by a single mfr and are tightly controlled with regards to flow. The current thought is that NO existing manifolds that are currently legal would be caused to be illegal - they would still be allowed. However, the Spec would probably flow better and cost a LOT LESS than new ones ... and the 'escalation' and 'manifold of the month' would STOP. SPEC would mean you can't touch it, period. The spindles in question were suggested by someone on your coast. They are being looked at because they are 'not quite identical' to the VW part. We have some on order and will look at them to see if they might offer some sort of performance advantage (we doubt it). Since they are ILLEGAL now, depending on what we find, the Committee *might* recommend that they be "allowed" as a replacement part. Hope this clears some things up for you guys. SteveD |
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Nov 4, 2009 10:39:08 GMT -8
I sent in the proposal for the spindle and carrier. The difference on the spindle is the bearing spacer is incorporated into the base of the spindle itself, where they tend to brake. The carrier is heavy duty in design. Both are new, not reconditioned. They have been used for off road use for years. These are new and would seem to enhanced safety, I thought why not?
An after note. We experienced a carrier break while qualifying at T-hill between T-4 and T-5.
Steve, Thanks for the clarification.
|
|
sabre1
National Driver
Posts: 157
|
Post by sabre1 on Nov 4, 2009 12:01:01 GMT -8
Hi Bruce,
I have never heard of a carrier breaking! Do you recall exactly where it broke and possibly any history that might have led to the failure? Just curious...
Thanks.
-Jim
PS: I purchased a set of those HD spindles; $90 or so for the pair on sale from CIP1. Very nice parts.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Nov 4, 2009 12:19:43 GMT -8
Jim,
It broke on the handle just below the bushing housing at the top. It is currently at Ron Chuck Shop. You could tell it had a crack, it did not break all at one time. A guess it might have been on a dune buggy or other off road vehicle since they have been known to break during that sort of application. We do use those spindle savers. They may have aided in the carrier breaking since they do strenghten the spindle. Just some thoughts since this is the first one I've seen break. Cause and effect.
|
|
fv80
Newbie
Posts: 7
|
Post by fv80 on Nov 5, 2009 4:46:34 GMT -8
... PS: I purchased a set of those HD spindles; $90 or so for the pair on sale from CIP1. Very nice parts. Keep in mind that those spindles are NOT legal for FV at this time. From the picture on CIP1, there is also some difference in the dog bone part. Hopefully, they will be acceptable and will be allowed after we get a look at them face to face (assuming we can convince the CRB  ). Steve |
|
sabre1
National Driver
Posts: 157
|
Post by sabre1 on Nov 5, 2009 9:17:30 GMT -8
Hi Steve,
Yes, I am aware of that fact. I would lobby for their approval. What I think many people don't realize is that the spacer used on the stock VW spindle has a sharp edge on the inside that acts as a stress riser, likely leading/contributing to the cracks. I have radiussed my spacers AND had the spindle radius steel shot peened. I may never need the new ones, but I thought it worthwhile to get a heavy duty spare set, just in case. :-)
-Jim
PS: I only purchased the spindle set, so the 'dogbone' is a separate item that until just recently, I thought to be fairly bulletproof.
|
|
|
|
Post by brian on Nov 5, 2009 10:47:41 GMT -8
I have had link pins shear in accidents and have never thought of having the dog bone checked for cracks. I don't think the reinforced spindles are an issue but hitting things and landing awkwardly on a front corner would likely be a cause.
Several years ago I asked the CRB for permission to weld reinforcements on the spindles and turkey legs. The request was denied. Maybe it's time to ask again.
|
|
sabre1
National Driver
Posts: 157
|
Post by sabre1 on Nov 26, 2009 11:06:46 GMT -8
Copied below (from the other FV site) is a request by Steven Davis to the FV community to provide information on their intake manifolds. The FV Committee is working to decide if additional rules are needed to control manifold development. I believe their intent is craft any rule changes to affect the fewest (if any) existing manifolds. So they do need your help. I sent my info this past Tuesday. Turns out that I'm about the second one to respond. Please try to measure your manifold(s) and send the info to Steve. After all, they ARE trying to help US! Thanks.
-Jim
"The Committee is passing about 40 emails a day about manifolds. We are TRYING very hard to come up with the best solution for the class - not ourselves or any other particular person or group. Right now, the impetus is on gathering DATA. Exactly ONE person responded to the Registry email last month with some actual measurement data on his manifold. We are currently measuring our own manifolds to use as a starting point. Anyone else that would like to contribute, just let us know. We are looking for
1). weight (preferably in oz to at least 0.1) - IF you have a capable scale.
2). bend to bend (length of the "straight" cross tube)
3). head 'face' to carb 'face' height (sit flanges on flat and measure to center of carb flange - generally 8 - 9 inches).
4). Maximum diameter of tubing in 3/4 bend (anywhere from begin bend to flange).
5). Approx rough average of all measurements of 3/4 diameter (just to know whether the max is Atypical or the measurement is pretty consistent)
6). Same Max for 1/2 side.
7). Same 'average' for 1/2 side.
8 ). Approx deviation from STRAIGHT over 12 inches of cross tube centered at down tube. (worst case direction, ignoring any 'punches' below down tube.)
9). Approx 'excess expansion' under the flanges of the downtube (if the bottom is not flat, it's been punched out by a ball - about how much? within 1/8 inch or so)
10). Max dia of down tube (start about 3/4 from flange as it has a slight taper).
11). "Average" (as above) dia of down tube.
12). Any comments related to the origin or condition of the manifold that you think might be pertinent.
Some of these are more difficult to measure than you might think, but we still need the data. This will be put into a database to come up with some average, max and min numbers. Our thinking at this time is that the numbers that were proposed at the "meeting" might be further than we need to go. The more manifolds we can get data on, the better equipped we will be to TRY to decide what's best. If you want to send us your data, please take the time to do a decent job of the measurements. Please email me directly - Steve at WedgeRacing dot com and put MANIFOLD INFO in the Subject line. tnx. We are also continuing to pursue info on a possible Spec Manifold - just to see if it's possible and/or a logical road to consider..
I understand that the CRB is having a conference call tonight - we may have more "guidance" following that meeting, but as things stand, we are still working on rules for 2011 - nothing for 2010 that we know of. Any rules CHANGES (for 2011) that the Committee decides to propose will go out for member input before being enacted or trashed.
Steve"
|
|
).