Re: Need more input on the FV manifold rules
Posted: March 12th, 2009, 1:07 am
Ed,
The flange dimensions in the new rules were based on a fairly large sample of manifolds the committee members and others could get their hands on last November when we were working on this. I think it amounted to about 100 manifolds measured. We took the largest and added some to each direction to allow for some room for outliers beyond what we had seen. It sounds like we may have cut it a bit close on the long dimension, but you are "legal" at 2.987" though barely. What this new limitation was getting at was either the use of oddball non-1200 manifolds OR any attempt to stretch the flange significantly to force a larger ball through.
To me it looks like we are OK at 2.990", but just. I don't know whether it's worth making the change. Thankfully we added something to the largest we had measured!
I suggest you submit the dimensions of your flanges in your letter to the crb and suggest that the 2.990" limit might be a bit tight.
The flange dimensions in the new rules were based on a fairly large sample of manifolds the committee members and others could get their hands on last November when we were working on this. I think it amounted to about 100 manifolds measured. We took the largest and added some to each direction to allow for some room for outliers beyond what we had seen. It sounds like we may have cut it a bit close on the long dimension, but you are "legal" at 2.987" though barely. What this new limitation was getting at was either the use of oddball non-1200 manifolds OR any attempt to stretch the flange significantly to force a larger ball through.
To me it looks like we are OK at 2.990", but just. I don't know whether it's worth making the change. Thankfully we added something to the largest we had measured!
I suggest you submit the dimensions of your flanges in your letter to the crb and suggest that the 2.990" limit might be a bit tight.