Phone Poll

[Bruce]

I have started a phone poll on the manifold issue. This is the result so far. These are from the Northern and Southern Pacific Divisions.

For Spec

1 Alan Harrington
2 Blake Tatum
3 Steve Saslow (with conditions)
4 Ian Sweeney


Against

1 Dan Phipps
2 Jim Petrik
3 Norman Boles
4 Al Olinger
5 Jeff Olinger
6 Bruce Fuchiwaki
7 Ron Wake
8 Terran Swanson
9 Brian Swanson
10 Jeff Canfield
11 Norman Boles
12 Scott Meyer
13 Aaron Meyer
14 Jim Lepetich
15 Rich Bergen
16 Don Manthe
17 Larry Bacon
18 Don Pepperdene
19 Bob Posner
20 Quinn Posner
21 Dave Schrady
22 Tom Stratten
23 Adam Stratten
24 Chuck Cooper
25 Bryan Bartlett
26 Martin Cameron

I just asked are you for or against the Spec Manifold?

I will add names as they reply or you can do it yourself. If I made a mistake please let me know.

[Vracer]

Hold on Bruce, I am against the Spec Manifold.

[Bruce]

I am corrected and have modified the post.

[smsazzy]

When did you call and ask me?

[Bruce]

I personally talked to you at the Runoff. I didn't think you would have changed your mind, since you were the one that suggested the spec manifold at the Runoff meeting, If I am wrong you can let me know.

[smsazzy]

I would have to actually put myself in the undecided category. I am for a spec manifold if it is done right and truly controls costs. I am not for a spec manifold if it requires everyone to immediately go out and get one to remain legal.

[Bruce]

I stand corrected. See you at T-hill.

[DerElf]

Hey Bruce, sorry I missed your call.

This is a ludicrous concept and all I see is a reason for SOMEBODY to make more money off of long suffering VEE racers.

If I had a vote (not driving right now, remember?) I would say "No way Jose"

[btatum]

Iam for it. Stop thinking about the present and think about the future. For a minimal cost everyone can be equal.

Blake Tatum

[smsazzy]

Okay, add me to the pro list. I think it is a great idea for the class. (So long as it is an 'alternative' part, and not maditory)

[Bruce]

Steve,

They are talking about a Spec Manifold, specific or specified, by definition you will be required to purchase it if you wish to compete. I'm not sure the committee has offered the option of an alternate part. I'm not sure they want to go that route, because it would open a whole new can of worms. Example : They would have to make it so our current manifold would be equal to the spec to be fair.

I will add you back for.

Blake,

The cost is unknown. A manifold is only one part of the intake system.

Everyone else,

I have been asked, if there was an alternative. It was proposed that we add additional limits to the height, maximum OD at bends to head and minimum distance between start of the bends to head. The ones with the most knowledge, the Manifold constructors got together and set these additional limits. Accepting their limits effects the least amount of competitors and does not require a mandatory expenditure. I have since learned after talking to one of the members of the committee, they did not like these numbers and were going to change them. Their reason was it did not go with the intent of the original rule, however I don't see them using the same standard for the spec. I was also told that one manufactures manifolds would all be illegal. It seems to me they were targeting him. The winner of the Runoff was using one of his manifolds.

[sabre1]

A couple of talking points to add to this discussion.

Regardless of the committee's recommendation to the SCCA, the members will still get to vote yay or nay on the recommendation via comments to the CRB. Membership input to the CRB has been very pitiful though on most FV related subjects. Do keep in mind that the committee is a volunteer group and they are doing it for the betterment of the class; they are reacting to member input. They have done a lot of work on our behalf.

I have suggested to Steve Davis that one approach would be to allow the spec manifold BUT with an appropriate restrictor plate so that its performance was only slightly better than existing manifolds so both could be used. This would require specs for both versions though, and would probably be more work for all involved. Idea here being to continue using what we have, but eventually competitors would want to upgrade to a better package.

One of my biggest concerns with the idea of a spec manifold is that it will cause a new round of development on exhaust systems, head porting and perhaps cam timing, etc, etc. There WILL BE vendors who will claim more HP using their widget in conjunction with the spec manifold. Their claim may or may not be true. The fast guys will do the development work and will be faster BECAUSE they did the development work, not necessarily because of the spec manifold or the widget. I'm concerned that those that don't want to spend the time and $ doing the development work will either fall behind or lose interest because they don't want to spend the $. There is no simple answer here.

Lastly, a radical idea perhaps, BUT, if we want to, we might be able to add a requirement in the region supps that to earn region points, you have to use the existing manifold and NOT a spec manifold. This would be similar to what Blake did with the spec tire. Not a simple solution as specs would need to be created for the manifold that would be used, but an alternative to consider.

My 2 cents.

-Jim

[Take 'em Out Terran]

hey everyone, I dont know if to be in this discussion you had to actually have something sent to you by phone or whatever. So stop me now if this is the case, but...

I believe that the basis of a spec manifold should be to allow a person to have the same performance as existing manifolds without the price being through the roof (or thats what it feels like to me ). It almost should be cheaper if possible (cause again some of the prices I've heard for hot-ticket manifolds seems crazy to me, but I'm only 17 so what do i know...)

Whether using a restrictor plate, smaller diameter tubing, or whatever, it should be about the same performance (like with flow numbers and whatever else is involved that i don't quite know of) as an existing manifolds... for now.

If said spec manifolds become popular and are much cheaper, but with the same performance, and everyone is using them (from regions to the runoffs) then the idea of making more performance gains than existing manifolds could be worked on.

My 1 cent (I don't think I've earned 2 cents yet )

[Take 'em Out Terran]

Wait, how did my name get added to the Against list?! lol I don;t remember anyone asking me

[Scott]

Guilty by association, just like Aaron