February Minutes
Posted: February 14th, 2016, 6:13 pm
The FV Ad Hoc Committee met February 3, 2016
Members Present: Stevan Davis, Barrett Hendricks, Bruce Livermore, John Petillo, Alex Bertolucci
Guest: Fred Clark
John Petillo reported on the Racer’s Expo 2016. Northeast Formula Vee group (NEFV) and New England Region SCCA both had booths together at the event. Aside from the interest in racing Vees, for those who were serious about possibly getting started, the questions of “How do you get started?” and “What do I need to do?” were the most repeated questions. A takeaway from the Expo is the importance of explaining how to get started in the class/racing in a manner that reduces perceived obstacles. The next Northeast Formula Vee promotional event will be at Race-A-Rama in Springfield, MA February 26-28, 2016.
There was general discussion regarding mixed group racing. This continues to be a safety concern for all committee members.
GCR Section 9.1.1.C.5.D.6
The Committee continued discussion from January’s meeting regarding modifying this section to better emphasize that the words “machine any previously machined surface" only applies to those items specifically in Section 9.1.1.C.5.D.6. There is a concern that this wording has been taken out of context and applied to other engine components (e.g. machining valve guide bosses).
Also, during the January meeting the Committee was made aware of engines with pistons that have had material removed from the top – apparently intentionally leaving a non-planer top surface. If these pistons were to be measured at their low points or if multiple measurements for each piston were to be averaged during a teardown, then that engine could potentially be determined to meet the rules by some inspectors, while actually having higher compression and therefore a performance advantage. As a result, discussion was held regarding clarifying, “Minimum depth, top of cylinder barrel to top of piston.” Based on the Schultheis Scrutineers Handbook this measurement for each cylinder should be made by finding the highest spot of each piston (lowest measurement value). Then the numbers from each cylinder are averaged for the official deck height. The Committee agrees that this should be the proper procedure and intends to submit a request to the CRB to modify the GCR wording to make the process more clear.
In light of this interpretation of GCR Section 9.1.1.C.5.D.6, a concern was raised that, if "machining of any previously machined surface" is not generally allowed in FV, then repairing damaged engine parts would also not be generally allowed. Although it is not currently stated or allowed, it is the Committee’s belief that repairing damaged parts should be within the intent of the rules, so long as there is no competitive advantage gained. Therefore, the Committee will review the possibility of proposing language that would specifically address repairing damaged engine parts to make them serviceable. Further discussion will be held at the next meeting.
GCR Section 9.1.1.C.5.D.11
While reviewing GCR Section 9.1.1.C.5.D.6, a Committee member noticed contradictory language in 9.1.1.C.5.D.11, “dimensions are included for information only and must be observed.” A proposed recommendation is to remove, “are included for information only, and” and emphasize “dimensions must be observed". Also, it was noted that the valve diameters could be listed as a single maximum value for each valve (exhaust and intake) instead of listing both the smaller and larger values for each valve.
GCR Section 9.1.1.C.5.D.14
The committee is sensitive to the cost and relative scarcity of good cylinder heads and does not wish to obsolete any heads as a result of the recommended changes to 9.1.1.C.5.D.6. With this in mind, we propose a change to the valve spring rules to eliminate any real or perceived advantage gained by reducing the size of the valve guide bosses. Since the intent of the rules is that valve guide bosses are not allowed to be machined, the minimum inside diameter of the valve spring should be limited by the size of the unmodified valve guide boss. Therefore, setting a minimum inside diameter for the lower portion of the valve spring would restrict the selection of valve springs to those that would fit over an unmodified guide boss. Committee members have measured a sample of head guide boss diameters to determine what values would be appropriate. This data will be used to develop a recommended change to the valve spring rules.
The Committee plans to propose to the CRB that changes be made to the sections discussed above. If any of these are accepted "as is" or with modification by the CRB, it is expected that most, if not all changes would go out for member input. A second draft of possible modifications to the above sections will be discussed at the next Committee meeting.
No other items were presented or discussed.
Next meeting March 2, 2016
Members Present: Stevan Davis, Barrett Hendricks, Bruce Livermore, John Petillo, Alex Bertolucci
Guest: Fred Clark
John Petillo reported on the Racer’s Expo 2016. Northeast Formula Vee group (NEFV) and New England Region SCCA both had booths together at the event. Aside from the interest in racing Vees, for those who were serious about possibly getting started, the questions of “How do you get started?” and “What do I need to do?” were the most repeated questions. A takeaway from the Expo is the importance of explaining how to get started in the class/racing in a manner that reduces perceived obstacles. The next Northeast Formula Vee promotional event will be at Race-A-Rama in Springfield, MA February 26-28, 2016.
There was general discussion regarding mixed group racing. This continues to be a safety concern for all committee members.
GCR Section 9.1.1.C.5.D.6
The Committee continued discussion from January’s meeting regarding modifying this section to better emphasize that the words “machine any previously machined surface" only applies to those items specifically in Section 9.1.1.C.5.D.6. There is a concern that this wording has been taken out of context and applied to other engine components (e.g. machining valve guide bosses).
Also, during the January meeting the Committee was made aware of engines with pistons that have had material removed from the top – apparently intentionally leaving a non-planer top surface. If these pistons were to be measured at their low points or if multiple measurements for each piston were to be averaged during a teardown, then that engine could potentially be determined to meet the rules by some inspectors, while actually having higher compression and therefore a performance advantage. As a result, discussion was held regarding clarifying, “Minimum depth, top of cylinder barrel to top of piston.” Based on the Schultheis Scrutineers Handbook this measurement for each cylinder should be made by finding the highest spot of each piston (lowest measurement value). Then the numbers from each cylinder are averaged for the official deck height. The Committee agrees that this should be the proper procedure and intends to submit a request to the CRB to modify the GCR wording to make the process more clear.
In light of this interpretation of GCR Section 9.1.1.C.5.D.6, a concern was raised that, if "machining of any previously machined surface" is not generally allowed in FV, then repairing damaged engine parts would also not be generally allowed. Although it is not currently stated or allowed, it is the Committee’s belief that repairing damaged parts should be within the intent of the rules, so long as there is no competitive advantage gained. Therefore, the Committee will review the possibility of proposing language that would specifically address repairing damaged engine parts to make them serviceable. Further discussion will be held at the next meeting.
GCR Section 9.1.1.C.5.D.11
While reviewing GCR Section 9.1.1.C.5.D.6, a Committee member noticed contradictory language in 9.1.1.C.5.D.11, “dimensions are included for information only and must be observed.” A proposed recommendation is to remove, “are included for information only, and” and emphasize “dimensions must be observed". Also, it was noted that the valve diameters could be listed as a single maximum value for each valve (exhaust and intake) instead of listing both the smaller and larger values for each valve.
GCR Section 9.1.1.C.5.D.14
The committee is sensitive to the cost and relative scarcity of good cylinder heads and does not wish to obsolete any heads as a result of the recommended changes to 9.1.1.C.5.D.6. With this in mind, we propose a change to the valve spring rules to eliminate any real or perceived advantage gained by reducing the size of the valve guide bosses. Since the intent of the rules is that valve guide bosses are not allowed to be machined, the minimum inside diameter of the valve spring should be limited by the size of the unmodified valve guide boss. Therefore, setting a minimum inside diameter for the lower portion of the valve spring would restrict the selection of valve springs to those that would fit over an unmodified guide boss. Committee members have measured a sample of head guide boss diameters to determine what values would be appropriate. This data will be used to develop a recommended change to the valve spring rules.
The Committee plans to propose to the CRB that changes be made to the sections discussed above. If any of these are accepted "as is" or with modification by the CRB, it is expected that most, if not all changes would go out for member input. A second draft of possible modifications to the above sections will be discussed at the next Committee meeting.
No other items were presented or discussed.
Next meeting March 2, 2016