|
|
Post by Bruce on Jan 1, 2010 11:45:02 GMT -8
The committee has gotten their hands on one (1) spec manifold. They want to send it to engine builder's to get their perspective on it. This will be very limited since until it is produced we will not be able to know what the variations will be and most important who will be in charge of distribution.
The committee has asked for our help by sending them our manifold's specs. I suspect not one has a twin, since we are talking about a mechanical unit, hence the fallacy of a spec manifold.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Jan 4, 2010 16:17:34 GMT -8
I sent in my opinion to the CRB and I am not in favor of the spec manifold or the restrictor plate.
|
|
|
|
Post by brian on Jan 5, 2010 10:37:04 GMT -8
A lot of people feel this is the only way to control development and costs related to our stock manifolds. If you own a great manifold, you're probably not in favor. If you need to buy one, the spec manifold will be cheaper than the modified OEM units and you'll be in favor of the spec idea. I think there's no real easy answer here except to have choices. I am not in favor of making the spec manifold mandatory but will withhold my CRB input until the committee finishes their work and reports back to us. Stay tuned....
|
|
sabre1
National Driver
Posts: 157
|
Post by sabre1 on Jan 5, 2010 12:14:47 GMT -8
I agree with Brian on this. I have found out that Ron Chuck is on the list of engine builders that the spec manifold will be sent to, and I will be there for a good look, take measurements and to take pictures. Somewhere along the line, someone will hopefully do some dyno testing with it and post their findings. If necessary, I'll volunteer my engine for testing at Ron's.
I have to admit that the test day has me jazzed up for another year of great racing! And I didn't even drive... ;-)
-Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Jan 5, 2010 22:31:32 GMT -8
I sent it in since they were saying that no one was making any comments to the CRB.
|
|
sabre1
National Driver
Posts: 157
|
Post by sabre1 on Jan 18, 2010 16:33:10 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by lauryfv on Jan 20, 2010 15:46:46 GMT -8
1- And no one will tinker with the spec manifold??
2- How many will you have to buy to get a good one?
3- Will SFR tech make us drill inspection holes for wall thickness checks?
All possiblities based on happenings in the good old days of FV.
|
|
sabre1
National Driver
Posts: 157
|
Post by sabre1 on Jan 20, 2010 17:06:35 GMT -8
I was beginning to wonder if anyone was paying any attention. The spec manifold has the ID of the tee junction machined in the horizontal direction (including chatter marks) and there are grinding marks in the downtube attachment area - probably clean-up work from the welding operation; sorry no pics of this.
There has been some discussion about using a restrictor plate to limit the HP gain. Ron Chuck has dyno tested this manifold and was going to fabricate a restrictor plate to test as well, but I don't know what his results were. The tubing was all the same size and it was welded tube not seamless.
-Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Jan 20, 2010 21:28:15 GMT -8
A little more info. That thing is 1.125" OD stainless, stock is .995". It is large and I still think it is a silly idea.
|
|
|
|
Post by brian on Jan 21, 2010 12:14:16 GMT -8
As long as it is equalized and not required, I have no problem. Good points Laury, I would imagine with a restictor plate mods would not have that much effect. You'd still have to test it.
|
|
Vracer
Regional Driver
Posts: 63
|
Post by Vracer on Jan 22, 2010 11:36:01 GMT -8
Why not make it like the pop off valves for the old CART series, you get your pop off valve when you show up for the event and give it back at the end. SCCA would have a box of manifolds at the track, you show up and get one handed to you at tech. That way no one can mess with it on the side.
The real question is would this rule increase the participation for the race weekends, would it get more cars out of the shop and onto the track? That is where we need to focus our rule changes.
|
|
|
|
Post by brian on Jan 22, 2010 12:33:49 GMT -8
I agree vracer. Making this manifold mandatory will kill participation. Don't think the idea of getting a manifold every weekend would work. Unlike CART, we all don't have professsional mechanics on staff to install one every weekend. You raised a good point about increasing participation, I'm going to start another thread and ask that question.
|
|
sabre1
National Driver
Posts: 157
|
Post by sabre1 on Jan 22, 2010 12:36:17 GMT -8
I honestly doubt the SCCA would want to get into the manifold distribution process at any event. Tech is usually pretty busy with all the normal stuff. I doubt you'd want to have to install a manifold first thing on a race weekend, and then return it when you are done. BTW: those pop-off valves were serialized and were tested before AND after each session, or maybe it was at the end of the day. And when they were handed to you by the crew, they were HOT! Someone will still have to purchase all those manifolds and they will need to be available at every regional and national event. The Vee community would end up buying many more than would ever be needed and I personally think they will be expensive.
I agree that we need to improve the car counts. The FV Committee is trying to create a database of manifold dimensions to help craft a rule that will allow most of the existing manifolds but limit any 'exotic' manifolds. That rule would allow us to keep what we currently have. Some engine builders (Ron Chuck included) can massage current manifolds to improve performance, and have done so. Have you sent your manifold dimensions in? Have you taken your manifold to Ron to see if he can make it better?
-Jim
|
|
