Formula Vee Meeting during the Runoffs

[cendiv37]

I am working on it. I don't know how successful I'll be. There is no doubt that without some parts to evaluate, we cannot move forward on any kind of spec manifold. We dropped the ball 5 years ago just as we were trying to get samples from OZ (some other problem took precedence - like no pistons and cylinders or something ).

I'm working to pick up the pieces from then.

[Matt King]

What about a three-piece manifold with cast ends like the 1600s use? That would make the straight part pretty simple. The castings could then be separately controlled and inspected by volume, similar to cc'ing an intake or exhaust port or combustion chamber in a cylinder head like some other classes to. It would add some cost to the project but would be worth considering anyway. Even it the casting doesn't work out, a three-piece tubular manifold with slip-fit ends could be made that would make the bends easier to produce.

[FVartist]

The only reasonable option for me is the one presented by the manifold makers. It does not require a purchase. No one can guarantee me the same with the other options.

Bruce

[cendiv37]

Matt, I think you're on the right track.

I believe a 3 part manifold could be made that would be relatively easy to make and MUCH easier to inspect than our current manifolds. The three part concept would also allow the use of simple, slip on head clamps (like a 1500 single port manifold). The manifold itself would end in a simple round flange attached at each head. Each section could be inspected independently and you could see most of the way into the tubing from the open ends, etc. If we start with this concept, then the volume limit (per section) is also tenable. You could even mark the "certified" parts with their measured weights and volumes. Add a few go-no-go OD measurements and you have some real possibility of control and stability.

[hardingfv32-1]

So the center junction allows the two legs and one vertical section to slip into it? This is aluminum and has clamping capabilities? Billet or cast?

It is not like you are going to be making a bunch, maybe 50 at a time.

There will not be any requirement to replace your current manifold, right?

Brian

[Edward Schubert]

I currently do not have a dog in this fight. Howvever I expect to be running with MARRS in 2010. I have read more than I care about manifolds. You could build an intake out of Cut and Thread plumbing pipe and fittings and put it on a motor and win with it! Good drivers win with broken shock mounts, no brakes, slipping clutches, tires going down, SFR's running over them, dof FF's getting in the way, etc., etc. The bottom line someone is screwing someone all the time in racing and $1,500 manifolds falls in that catagory! For example you can buy a quality "Racing" intake for a Chevy V8 for less than $350.00 or a set of "Racing" headers for less than $400.00. These headers certainly have more material and as much labor in them as in the 30 inches and 3 flanges that make up a VW 1200 intake. We all know the real issue people take hours to massage a VW intake to get a flow rate almost unmeasureably better than what they started out with. Racers have been doing stuff like this since the beginning of time. There is no reason in the world that a spec intake can not be produced for $300. Let everyone run what they have for one more year...serial number them and check at every event. In the future all will need the cheap spec one the next season and at the races you all throw them in a box, shake it up and draw a "new" one out for use that weekend. Development of heads that will outperform using this intake will happen and if you fall for that snake oil shame on you. The cost of racing will continue to go up, however with common sense we can control it somewhat.

[jpetillo]

I think the key to any proposal is cost. The less the better. The idea of new manifolds and restrictor plates won't be the least cost option. Tighten up the rules on the manifolds as proposed in the meeting and let's see what happens. Why wait for SCCA, gentlemen's agreement would suffice until the rule process catches up.

Brian, this seems to make a lot of sense - tighten up the rules as discussed at the meeting. Has there been a description of what those were or perhaps a rough draft of the changes being considered? Maybe they are back at the beginning of this thread - I'll have to go back and check. John

[cendiv37]

John,

There will be a summary of the meeting published soon that will detail the whole Runoffs meeting discussion including the additional manifold measurements/limits proposed to limit further development.

Once that is circulated, I think SCCA will begin asking for input from the FV community. In the mean time I'm going to continue to pursue the concept of a spec. manifold. The more I think about it the more I believe it is a better solution. However, it will be up to the participants to make the call and SCCA to go along with it. Any change will be made for the 2011 season at the earliest. Even to do that will take a big effort.

Read Brian Harding's posts above very carefully. I think he can see the future with either solution: more rules controlling/limiting modifications made to rust free scrap yard parts vs. starting from scratch with a new design that can be reproduced, controlled and replaced if it gets bent.

There will be lot's of discussion ahead. We need lots of data on the proposed dimensions of as many current manifolds as possible and we need data data on how a spec. manifold (with or without a restrictor plate) would actually work.

[Edward Schubert]

A "spec" manifold with "redistribution" at track is the simple way to go. The cost should be embarrassingly low compared to what is out there now. Look outside of the box.....sometimes the simplest method is the best! The trick is to find a few people willing (and with the skill) to build dozens of duplicate manifolds at a fare price vs. building a few "one offs" at stupid prices. Do the current suppliers of these high cost manifolds really care about the masses.....I don't think so!

[jpetillo]

Bruce,

Thanks, I'll look forward to seeing the writeup. It will give us something to focus our discussions on.

Yes I did read Brian H's postings. Like many of the vendors, Brian will go forward and support the community however the rules evolve. I'm not so concerned with that.

I'm also not necessarily against a spec manifold or any other solutions to be considered, but it will be a lot of work before it can be developed into a solution. What I'm concerned with is that we 1) might rush it and make a poor decision, and 2) who will do the testing - I hope more than one party, and 3) that it will just deflect the manifold debacle to the carburetor and/or heads and we've bought ourselves nothing.

I just want to make sure that we don't forget about the bigger picture on our way to making a decision. John

[Matt King]

One thing from the meeting that hasn't been mentioned was potentially the most productive result--the creation of a national email-based communication system driven by the SCCA national office using license or membership data linked to the driver's class. This would allow the SCCA to reach out directly to active competitors on a class by class basis. It seemed from some comments by BoD members that the elements of the system exist but haven't been put to that use yet.

[FV80]

Matt,
Yes, email comms MIGHT get better - but our Ad Hoc experience says VERY FEW will respond anyway. Not much we can do about that. I'm working trying to get FV driver contact info from SCCA registration people ... but no responses so far...
Steve

[brian]

I talked with Lisa Noble and she's going to look into the possiblility of using the Topeka membership software to provide class based communication. The lack of feedback has been a long standing problem for the committes and boards. Being able to notify class members of proposals will be more efficient than depending on everyone to wade through each month's Fastrac.

A letter to your director in support of this software upgrade would be helpful.

[FVartist]

Bruce Livermore,

PM sent

Bruce

[cendiv37]

PM replied to.

[GrapeFarmerAl]

I was at the Runoffs meeting and my opinion on the manifold issue, is that trying to get everyone to agree on a solution is much like like herding cats. Since the spec manifold issue was raised at the meeting, with a reference to the the Australians, who went to a spec manifold a few years back (they now have some manifold experience) wouldn't it make sense to get their input? The Australian manifold, if I heard it right, was a CNC bent, certified (all within 1%), serial numbered piece that was, in US dollars, $215. back in 2004. Given inflation and the current economic climate they may not be much more than that now. I have a manifold that was recently reworked by Steve Pastore (thanks Steve) that flows like one of the West Coast monsters. While the manifold wasn't the problem I was having at the Runoffs, I'd gladly turn the manifold into a funky shower head or a new set of handle bars for my bicycle if we went to a spec unit. I even remember Brad Stout say he'd be glad to give his up as well, or did he say he'd give it up if Catherine Zeta Jones came to his house to deliver current Formula Vee news? Come to think of it I'd give it up for either one too. Someone stood up at the meeting and said that if he had a spec manifold one day and came back the next it wouldn't be the same. I found that offensive. With a spec manifold it would be easier to police than the current manifolds. If a spec manifold was agreed upon, why not have a few certified manifolds floating around the divisions and at a Tech or Race Stewards discretion presented to a driver as a trade. Didn't Spec Renault do that years ago? Something like a claimer, but you receive, on the spot a manifold that is exactly like the one that should be on your car. We are checked all the time for weight and fuel, and manifolds can be changed quickly. Make the spec manifold flow slightly better than the "West Coast Monsters" and allow both old and new spec to be run for a one or two year transition, but keep the Solex "restrictor plate" we've been using for 46 years.

I understand that the Canadians are concerned about the current manifold issues in the US and are discussing a spec manifold/rules change/clarification to fend off the unwanted escalation. Racing is expensive enough. We need to do something to stem the current escalation. My vote is for a spec manifold.

[SR Racing]

Just a comment re: the changing of manifolds at the track. On some cars this is not a couple minute change. Cooling scoops, carb and carb linkage, and more sometimes have to be removed. Also, some of us like to use a bore scope to check the internal fit of the manifold to the head, carb to manifold, etc.
My only concern with the spec manifold..

[GrapeFarmerAl]

Jim,

I agree not all cars are created equal when it comes to packaging, but I'm not saying that the manifolds should be changed before or during the qual.. & race. After would be fine. Then you have lots of time to use the borescope, satellite imaging or what ever means you use to align the manifold. It wouldn't necessarily have to be on the winning car, maybe a random draw on the first five cars. Perhaps just the threat of that happening would keep everyone on the straight and narrow.

Al

[Speedsport]

I'm confused why the manifold has become the focal point of so many debates and the recipient of so much blame for the issues surrounding our class. New manifolds are selling for $1200-$1300, depending on whose you buy. I paid $1000 for a manifold 5 years ago, and I am in no means the only one to do so. The outcry wasn't so obvious then, so why now? So I have to replace a manifold after 5 years. Do I like it? No. But in that time, I had to replace my helmet due to a ratings change, the belts in my car twice, 3 batteries, new radios, ect. ect. The list goes on and on.

Why would we stop at manifolds then? When do people start complaining about the price of shocks? They are getting out of hand, so we better go to a spec shock. Or what about data systems. Why are people just accepting the use of $5000 data systems? Will those be the next thing to go? Or what about $28,000 Vortechs. Perhaps we should look into a spec chassis. Where does it stop????

In 15 years of racing FV's, I've been through 2 manifolds. My manifolds have lasted longer then my radios. If I have to buy a new manifold every 5 years because someone figures out how to make them a little better, that sill seems like a bargin to me. What about heads? Who here still won't go out and buy a new set of heads for $1000 if they are better?

The biggest issue that needs to be addressed is attracting new drivers. Current drivers will always find something to complain about, and some will always find excuses to quit. Nothing can prevent that - spec tires, spec manifolds, restrictor plates - nothing. There will always be the people who would race if..."ony we had xxxxxx". Some people will never be happy. It will happen in any class, with any rules, no matter how many spec parts are required. SRF's are a complete spec class, and drivers still quit. What matters is finding replacements. If we focus on that, we will contiunue to thrive and this manifold debate will be a thing of the past. Would we even be debating this if we had 60 cars at the runoffs instead of 45?


I agree with Brain Mcarthy from a few posts up. Let's put new dimension restrictions in place, and move on. That worked for the past 20 years. If it outlaws some of the new manifolds, so be it. Why would I not expect my manifold to last another 5 years if new dimensions are in place? If a spec manifold is used, what keeps those from becoming $1000 manifolds? I mean, it's not like someone with a dyno will be able to sort through some of them to find ones that are a little bit better right?????? The figures being mentioned now about a spec manifold are flow's within 1% of each other. That still can mean .5 HP difference. That's something worth sorting through several of them to find the best one. I would certainly object to any concept of random manifold exchanges, as I would not want to be forced to run a manifold that was in place on someone elses car. Again, it seems silly to have to go through all of this, and the idea of a spec manifold is an over reaction that undermines some of the long term stability of the class.

For what it's worth, my credit to Brain Harding on the podium was not just for manifold work - he has a lot of knowledge in many areas that he was willing to share. He is a nice guy and his sharing of the information deserved some credit.


And for all who sent their congrats, a giant thank you!


Michael Varacins

[John Deonarine]

If the decision is to go with spec manifold, why not include a "claiming rule"? This could limit "tinkering" with the spec manifold.

John

[brian]

Claimer rules can be easily circumvented. I protest yours this week and you protest mine next week. That will effectively keep everyone else away from my item. I've been envolved in claimer classes and that's just asking for trouble.

[FVartist]

Finally people with a modicum of common sense. I agree with Mike V. and Brian M.

Bruce

[remmers]

I'm going to have to agree with Michael on this one, everything is always escalating, otherwise we'd have perhaps had a D13 win the Runoffs this year
Drivers and their crew will always have the mentality that every little bit helps. One weekend a few years back, I turned down the lug bolts on the car, saved .5 lbs of rolling inertia and possibly just a tick of drag too. It's probably not a perceivable advantage, but it probably does help a little bit. Other drivers will remove and clean their heads after every race, more still tinker with the valve lash. You can't tell me that they're not looking for little more than 10th's if not 100th's, but every little bit helps.

[SR Racing]

As terrible as it sounds, Mike V. is correct. If you can't afford the monies he mentions (safety, enhanced parts, etc.) Racing in any venue is probably not the hobby for you.
FV is the cheapest of most all forms of racing. Most of the customers we have running ASA, NASA AI, SU, GT1, and even the drag racers, dirt trackers, pullers, etc. would laugh at us if we told him we had to buy a new manifold every 5 or 6 years at $1200. Or even tires after 2 races. Some of these guys CHASSIS and or engines are obsolete after a couple years. Sometimes for rules changes, sometimes for technical advances. They are often spending 5 and 10K for engine rebuilds. (Even Spec Miata will cost more than an FV if you want to run mid pack and above, and god forbid you don't bend a fender.)

The things that need work are attracting new drivers and a parts/component package that is reliable and available. (The latter is where Mike and I disagree <g>)

I think Mike was possibly one of 2 or 3 of the youngest guys in the field and he is what 38 or so? (sorry if I missed on the high side <g> ) The average age in the RO field was over 50+ I am sure. And Mike is in FV because his dad was in it. I think most all the drivers in the field started in FV close to 25 years ago or more and/or a family member was in it. So there has been literally NO new blood for decades. That is what has to be fixed. Searching junk yards is not going to attract new blood. I think it was Al V. that said at the meeting FV has always been a scoungers class and it should remain. It certainly was and could remain. But even aside from some parts issues there will be a shortage of drivers. They will retire or move to Vintage (as many have). Those that don't want any changes to the class are those that figure they only have 5 or 10 years left of racing max so that is the horizon they see. And that is a valid position. FV is just a class, not some cultural thing that has to be protected after they are gone.

If people really want to see a open wheel entry level class like FV to remain it is the new blood that is needed with an attractive car, parts package. Yes, FST is one answer. Even if someone wants to argue that it is not cheaper (yet all data shows it is far cheaper) that is fine. But it is much more attractive with a far superior parts cost and availabilty package. And it doesn't obsolete current cars.

[GrapeFarmerAl]

Perhaps the manifold issue is the straw that broke the camels back. Maybe the cost escalation is tied to the lack of new blood. We’re trying to attract the “younger” generation, but no one wants to give up what they’ve worked so hard or paid so dearly for. I did a Google search for average annual incomes and came up with a few interesting numbers. For a man working full time the average as of 2007 was $45,113 and the average for those in the work force over the age of 14 was $26, 036. This number is most likely closer to the youth market we think we need to attract. I also did a search for new Formula Vee kits and only came up with the Caracal website and Fred advertises a roller for $14,500. I then came up with the Ski Motorsports website and the car that won the Brundage Cup at the last birthday party was for sale as a roller for $11,000. Both cars would make fine racecars after adding a motor for let’s say $5500, manifold $1200, Carb for maybe $300 and we’re at $21,500 for the Caracal and $18,000 for the Womer. No trailer, spares, driving suit, helmet, or competition license. Now figure what percentage those are of the incomes. The Caracal comes out to 82% of the “young blood’s” income the Womer 70% and even if you figure a roller at around $5000 plus motor, manifold and carb it still works out to 46% of income. The income figures were given as before tax numbers so the hit is even greater. So the spread is 47% to 82%. Two or three years ago there was a survey and the average income of a Runoffs driver was $250,000. Now apply those percentages to the Runoffs average income and you would be spending $117, 500 to $205,000 to race a Vee. I know, I know we’re all just skimming above the poverty level but we need to look at the market we want to attract and look at it from their view point. Next sit down and figure what you spend a weekend racing; tires, entry fees, motels (RV costs), fuel (tow and race car) and amortize all your other costs. Like trailer cost, crash damage, rebuilds, oil, spares, etc., etc. And you’ll come up with a number we’d all be reluctant to share with our wives. Regional costs would not be much lower with the exception of tires. I know of a driver that is on the verge of quitting because the regional fields are thin and he’s discouraged.Last race he did had four cars; one new driver, one using a rented car to keep his license and the other car was not very competitive. We can’t let this happen. So I really believe this is more than a manifold issue.

When I was a teenager I would go to Nelson Ledges and there was a guy that drove to the track in his Formcar. It had a muffler, headlights, tail lights.. all the necessary items to license a car in Ohio. He brought with him a pup tent, a tool box, driving equipment and weekend necessities, all in the cockpit. He would remove all street items including the muffler and run the weekend. Come Sunday afternoon he would reverse the process and drive home. He did very well… and I’ll bet he really enjoyed himself.

We need to find a place between the extremes.


Al