Machined Valve Guide Bosses

hardingfv32
Posts: 104
Joined: June 9th, 2015, 8:04 pm

Machined Valve Guide Bosses

Post by hardingfv32 »

Interesting how the CRB can just change a rule without member input or BRD review. I wonder if there are not some CBD members with a vested interest in this subject? Maybe the CRB discussion was a little twisted?

Some are going to say this is a clarification of the machining of existing machined surfaces etc. but it is not this section of the rules being changed. The valve spring section was changed but there was nothing unclear about the previous wording of the valve spring section.

All seems very odd. I withdraw my previous statement that FV competitors have control over their rules.

Brian
cendiv37
Posts: 386
Joined: June 25th, 2006, 7:29 pm

Re: Machined Valve Guide Bosses

Post by cendiv37 »

What Rules?

If the FSRC and CRB can just legislate new allowances into the rules via "clarifications" what exactly are the rules?
I suggest that anyone who thinks the rules should be enforced as they actually read should write a letter to the CRB asking them to do just that.

Bruce
Bruce
cendiv37
sharplikestump
Posts: 183
Joined: January 12th, 2009, 2:28 pm

Re: Machined Valve Guide Bosses

Post by sharplikestump »

Ahh yes............OBVIOUSLY a conspiracy. NOT! This is nothing but a clarification on a previously machined surface that has never had a spec or tolerance. The bosses are already different sizes, different heights, and not even close to being on centerline with the valve guides. Just what I would expect on a head that not only was manufactured by different firms in Germany, let alone in different countries, and probably done with a budget of less than $10. per unit.

I am just thankful that we have people on the CRB that possess the common sense to realize that this is a non-issue.

IMO, the committee goes on these witch hunts, and wonders why they have no credibility. If someone believes there are vested interests, please at least offer what those might be. I am not aware of any of them selling springs. I intentionally never even spoke with a CRB member until this subject was clarified.

Over the last four years, I have attempted to find the perfect spring at a reasonable price. I don't believe it will be even close to what any of us are currently using, and when it is found the boss dia. probably won't even be relevant. Instead of petty sniveling, you might be better off to get after it yourselves, because I believe none of us are even close yet.

Since the suggestion of a letter campaign has been brought up, I will add my support for that. Obviously the auto industry is waking up to the "Bee Hive Spring". No snake oil here, it's real. For those who appreciate the increased reliability of rocker arms that do not require grinding away a substantial portion of the beam (and strength) to clearance large retainers, or either running excessively high spring rates (which load the entire valve train needlessly), or spending substantial money to have unproven custom springs built, I suggest you DO write the CRB, thanking them for this clarification. There are other benefits to correcting the boss location, and I am willing to discuss those with anyone.
Chatter accomplishes little if anything..........write the CRB.
To those that claim the cost of cutting and locating the bosses to where they belong is excessive, I believe one of the members found the appropriate cutter for $80. It only requires a drill motor, can be shared, and should do countless heads. If that is too rich for your blood, just run whatever other spring you choose. It's up to you.

Mike Palermo Jr.
303-838.9515
FVEEGUY@YAHOO.COM
hardingfv32
Posts: 104
Joined: June 9th, 2015, 8:04 pm

Re: Machined Valve Guide Bosses

Post by hardingfv32 »

You're blowing smoke.....

1) Over .100" of material/diameter is being removed to fit the small beehive springs. Is it your position that the dimension tolerance of the bosses can be off as much as .100"? What is your level of tolerance with any dimension on the engine that you feel gives your the right to machine that surface? If something is off .001" then anything goes as far as machining?

Your position is fanciful.

2) Are there any FV competitors on the CRB or SR/F Committee? Is there any chance that any of them are using heads that have machined bosses? Not hard to figure out.

3) There has never been any allowance for machining previously machined surfaces other than the section of the rules pertaining to the cylinders.. pistons tops and combustion chamber. You never had anything that authorized you to machine the valve guide bosses. There was absolutely nothing that needed clarifying!

This was not a clarification of an existing rule. This rules change should be presented to the membership and the membership given the opportunity to respond.

Brian
sharplikestump
Posts: 183
Joined: January 12th, 2009, 2:28 pm

Re: Machined Valve Guide Bosses

Post by sharplikestump »

hardingfv32 wrote:You're blowing smoke.....Well, you and I both have a right to our opinion, don't we. I think you just like to lob bombs.

1) Over .100" of material/diameter is being removed to fit the small beehive springs. Is it your position that the dimension tolerance of the bosses can be off as much as .100"? What is your level of tolerance with any dimension on the engine that you feel gives your the right to machine that surface? If something is off .001" then anything goes as far as machining? You know someone removing that much? I certainly don't, but then I couldn't care less if they are totally eliminating them. I have to think that anyone who has done a number of vee engines has seen bosses broken completely off. How much difference did that make? None. Not even in the tech shed.

Your position is fanciful. Lob away.

2) Are there any FV competitors on the CRB or SR/F Committee? Is there any chance that any of them are using heads that have machined bosses? Not hard to figure out. Now, you're into wild speculation!

3) There has never been any allowance for machining previously machined surfaces other than the section of the rules pertaining to the cylinders.. pistons tops and combustion chamber. You never had anything that authorized you to machine the valve guide bosses. There was absolutely nothing that needed clarifying!

This was not a clarification of an existing rule. This rules change should be presented to the membership and the membership given the opportunity to respond. Obviously the CRB thought otherwise.

Brian
hardingfv32
Posts: 104
Joined: June 9th, 2015, 8:04 pm

Re: Machined Valve Guide Bosses

Post by hardingfv32 »

1) Ok then how much material do you need to remove? Is there something dimensionally wrong with every boss on every head that requires this material removal? That is an interesting problem you have found.

Now you are indicating a complete indifference to the machining rule because you say it does not make any difference. You should not have any problem with a rule that specifies the spring ID them... right? Or is it your position that the spring you use is the only one that will work in a FV engine.... you had to disregard the rules because this is the only spring that works.

2) You have not checked the committee memberships.

3) The CRB did not do their do diligence on this subject. At worst they only search out the technical opinion one or two members. It can only be viewed as suspicious that only letters requesting this change were received. Of course that is the point of notifying the membership so opposing views can be presented.

Brian
sharplikestump
Posts: 183
Joined: January 12th, 2009, 2:28 pm

Re: Machined Valve Guide Bosses

Post by sharplikestump »

hardingfv32 wrote:1) Ok then how much material do you need to remove? Is there something dimensionally wrong with every boss on every head that requires this material removal? That is an interesting problem you have found.
Yup.

Now you are indicating a complete indifference to the machining rule because you say it does not make any difference. You should not have any problem with a rule that specifies the spring ID them... right? Or is it your position that the spring you use is the only one that will work in a FV engine.... you had to disregard the rules because this is the only spring that works.
Seems to me that you are the one that wants to change the rules......springs are free. Mine is certainly not the only spring that works, just the best that I have found (so far). Go ahead and run the RD spring you recommended. Even they admit it is old technology, and at nearly double the price. Or you can do the research like others have done. I just feel I owe my customers the best. The fact that mine are far cheaper is just a bonus.

2) You have not checked the committee memberships..
Not my job.

3) The CRB did not do their do diligence on this subject. At worst they only search out the technical opinion one or two members. It can only be viewed as suspicious that only letters requesting this change were received. Of course that is the point of notifying the membership so opposing views can be presented.
As previously stated, you have a right to your opinion.
Happy Easter to all.


Brian
hardingfv32
Posts: 104
Joined: June 9th, 2015, 8:04 pm

Re: Machined Valve Guide Bosses

Post by hardingfv32 »

The issue is that there are a number of heads in service that have valve guide bosses that were machined in violation of the rules. Why were the rules changed if this is not the case? Must have been some 'doubt' in someones mind?

The FV Committee came up with a valid proposal that will allow the use of the machined boss heads but require the use of a valve spring that can fit over the non-machined boss. This is their attempt to prevent the machined boss heads from becoming junk. A very thoughtful compromise.

Why require the stock size spring OD you're asking? Why not just allow the boss machining?

Because you are the only ones benefiting from the the boss machining change. Why should you benefit from something that was never authorized by the rules? In your last post you clearly state that the springs we had to use because we were not machining the bosses are inferior to your small dia springs. By definition that means at a minimum I must purchase and test the smaller springs. This means added spring and machining cost for all of the competitors that did not machine the bosses.

Seems odd that the competitors who work within the restrictions of the rules are the one experiencing the additional costs.... seem fair to you?

What say you?

Brian
sharplikestump
Posts: 183
Joined: January 12th, 2009, 2:28 pm

Re: Machined Valve Guide Bosses

Post by sharplikestump »

hardingfv32 wrote:The issue is that there are a number of heads in service that have valve guide bosses that were machined in violation of the rules.

I guess we are just of a difference in opinion as to whether a rule was broken concerning an area that has never had a spec or tolerance attached to it. Why were the rules changed if this is not the case? Must have been some 'doubt' in someones mind?
And here, I see it as a CLARIFICATION, where you see it as a CHANGE.

The FV Committee came up with a valid proposal that will allow the use of the machined boss heads but require the use of a valve spring that can fit over the non-machined boss. This is their attempt to prevent the machined boss heads from becoming junk. A very thoughtful compromise.

A couple of problems here: First, I see the "valve guide boss" also to a degree as a "valve spring guide". Remember when I mentioned heads that had one or more of the bosses busted off? What I have found is that boss serves duel purposes........help support the guide, but also act as a guide or locator for the spring. What I have done on quite a few heads where the boss is CRACKED, is to turn it down and press on a thin-wall CrMo sleeve. Where the boss is missing, first, face off the floor, and then press an Al bushing on the VALVE guide to act as a SPRING guide. The latter process has worked in spite of the fact that it really is not adding much if any support for the VALVE guide. Secondly, now that myself and others have turned down all the bosses on these heads, that would require those customers to either pull those heads, or those engines, crate them, and ship them in for the above process to be performed. Here, I would have to tear the heads down, and either machine all the bosses again to the exact same diameter or machine a custom sleeve to press fit on each boss. I should mention, that as in the past, there would be some bosses broken during the pressing procedure. Factor in that I have multiple engines (up to 4) with customers from the East coast to the West coast, as well as the tip of FL and the coast of TX, up to Eagle River, Alaska. Logistics and financial nightmare. Realistically, this would, in many cases, mean "take your chances" or "stay home". Personally, I would guess I have 25 to 30 such engines, but that is just a fraction of the total.

Why require the stock size spring OD you're asking? Why not just allow the boss machining?

Because you are the only ones benefiting from the the boss machining change. Why should you benefit from something that was never authorized by the rules?
As stated, I am far from being the "only ones" that have resized the bosses, and in my mind the real benefit is correcting the LOCATION of the boss.

In your last post you clearly state that the springs we had to use because we were not machining the bosses are inferior to your small dia springs. I was speaking of the specific spring that you recommended....Those stock size springs are first generation design. RD has other (smaller) springs that may be better than what I am currently using. Also more expensive, but similar with the later technology.

By definition that means at a minimum I must purchase and test the smaller springs. Much cheaper and the testing has been done. You will actually save money.

This means added spring and machining cost for all of the competitors that did not machine the bosses. As previously stated, the machining can be done with a hand-drill and $80. cutter that could be shared by many, and in the big picture, this is a one-time minor cost that can save a bundle.

Not necessarily. The other option is to come up with the later design spring with the stock ID, but the better wire design. I have to think that they are already on the market. There could also be a stock dia. spring that has a more radical differential in top and bottom diameters.

Seems odd that the competitors who work within the restrictions of the rules are the one experiencing the additional costs.... seem fair to you? Again, I believe that Bee Hive Springs are a wonderful tool in reducing the cost from failures, that occur when we demand what we do from an engine that was designed for 3800 rpm shift points. If it is decided that this is a Rule Change, then I consider it far less radical than allowing the later style pushrods or allowing replacing the factory clothes pins holding the rockers, but I still see it as a clarification.

What say you? Thanks for asking.

Brian
hardingfv32
Posts: 104
Joined: June 9th, 2015, 8:04 pm

Re: Machined Valve Guide Bosses

Post by hardingfv32 »

1) Exactly what section of the rules authorized the machining of the heads... other than the combustion chamber.. in your opinion? Just because a surface is machined does not mean we are authorized re-machine that surface. Do you think all machine surfaces are open to re-machining?

Now I am sure no one would have said anything if one or two bosses needed a dimensional correction but your are machining very boss for another purpose. None of your dimensional/quality arguments justify the use of small iID springs.

2) Yes.. your expense could be greater than the other FV competitors converting to the smaller springs. I do not care.

A) The smaller springs and retainer mean an additional expense to me and
B) I though away a lot of expensive springs and matching retainers to make this conversion to a better spring. I made my original purchase decision base on the restricted size of the valve guide boss. It was the best spring that actual fit on an un-modified boss.

It is not going to be difficult to argue this as a economic fairness issue.

Brian
sharplikestump
Posts: 183
Joined: January 12th, 2009, 2:28 pm

Re: Machined Valve Guide Bosses

Post by sharplikestump »

hardingfv32 wrote:1) Exactly what section of the rules authorized the machining of the heads... other than the combustion chamber.. in your opinion? Just because a surface is machined does not mean we are authorized re-machine that surface. Do you think all machine surfaces are open to re-machining?

Actually, No, I don't. For instance, the bleed hole in the rear drums. Most of us know that the flashing there is where practically every crack that results in a failed drum originates. Where does it say we are allowed to do THAT? It doesn't, but who in their right mind would object to that? There is also the heavy trimming of the bell housing area of the engine case that is used in any Citation model FV. When I brought this up earlier, it was explained(?) away with a statement that Citations are a book of their own. Huh? What book is that? I don't consider that to be any major advantage, and apparently no one else does either, so it slides, and I for one don't care. THEN there is the practice or clearancing the center of the front beam tube where the 3/4 inch wide square restricts the rest of us to using a 3/4" maximum diameter sway bar. Now, most of us know that being able to use a larger bar can be an advantage, but then we also realize this is a no-no. I equate this practice with opening up a valve seat, or areas of the intake manifold. Do YOU know anyone that is crossing that line?

Now I am sure no one would have said anything if one or two bosses needed a dimensional correction but your are machining very boss for another purpose. None of your dimensional/quality arguments justify the use of small iID springs. Well, then what about 3 ........or 5?
Actually, I have no need to argue the point with you. Thankfully, the CRB has clarified the issue.


2) Yes.. your expense could be greater than the other FV competitors converting to the smaller springs. I do not care.

A) The smaller springs and retainer mean an additional expense to me
Why would you even choose to run them? You posted on 03/01/2016, "Weight...Now if you have not reduced your spring pressures by 30% then I guess you might see the power improvement. Holds 7000 at these lower pressures with no issue."
First, I think you left a word out, and secondly, I accept this as proof that there is no advantage to the smaller springs. You are achieving far better results than I am with the smaller springs. Since reading that statement, I have ordered a set of these springs/retainers. They are being drop-shipped to an independent tester for comparison, and then will be sent to me. If indeed they do prove to be superior, I will then have the OPTION of converting to them, Just as anyone, including you has the OPTION of converting to whatever steel spring they choose.


B) I though away a lot of expensive springs and matching retainers to make this conversion to a better spring. I made my original purchase decision base on the restricted size of the valve guide boss. It was the best spring that actual fit on an un-modified boss.

It is not going to be difficult to argue this as a economic fairness issue. For who?

Brian
hardingfv32
Posts: 104
Joined: June 9th, 2015, 8:04 pm

Re: Machined Valve Guide Bosses

Post by hardingfv32 »

I repeat.... 'Exactly what section of the rules authorized the machining of the heads... other than the combustion chamber.. in your opinion?'

You are not answering the question. You are deflecting away for the question by listing other non-authorized activities. Just because they are common practice does not mean they are valid under the current rule set. The fact is that any of the items you mention are would make a valid protest.

So by your own argument for machining the valve guide bosses has no legal standing. Just because a lot of other un-authorized activities take please does not mean that FV competitors have to accept valve guide boss machining. Just your bad luck that this is being called out.

Brian
Last edited by hardingfv32 on April 7th, 2016, 12:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Dietmar
Site Admin
Posts: 650
Joined: June 24th, 2006, 11:56 am

Re: Machined Valve Guide Bosses

Post by Dietmar »

********************************
Mike:
I have been following your statements on this site with interest, and I have to say that I find some of the comments not only erroneous but a bit offensive. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but since some of your comments have been directed at the FV Ad Hoc Committee, I feel a need to respond and also to inform forum members what has actually transpired regarding valve guide boss modification.

So how did this all start? Sometime in 2015, it was brought to the attention of the Committee that some individuals were modifying the valve guide boss to use valve springs with a significantly smaller diameter than stock. The Committee began investigating this and also learned that it remained controversial at the 2015 Runoffs. Smaller, lighter springs and retainers, especially “bee-hive” springs have several competitive advantages which I do not have to explain to you. It is/was the opinion of the Committee that while valve springs and retainers are only lightly restricted, modification of the cylinder head to fit "any" spring was not legal based on the wording of the FV rules. No matter the benefits, modifying the head to accommodate springs that would otherwise not fit was simply not legal per the FV rules prior to the recent rules "modification" issued by the CRB. It should also be noted that other engine builders have found or created bee-hive springs which achieve similar benefits but DO NOT require modification to the guide boss. So there are ways to achieve the benefits you claim but do it legally.
The fact of the matter is, modification of heads to fit smaller springs was done BEFORE the recent rules "modification", so let’s address the issue . Before this "modification", nowhere in the rules was there a mention of valve guide boss. Very clearly in the FV rules it states: "Formula Vee is a Restricted Class. Therefore, any allowable modifications, changes, or additions are as stated herein. There are no exceptions. IF IN DOUBT, DON’T." Hmmmm, there was no mention of an "allowed" valve guide boss modification anywhere in the rules. So I ask again, why did you think you could modify them?
You have said that the modification of the boss was "machining a previously machined surface" as stated in the rules. I’m sure that some have used this phrase to justify their actions, but most would agree that this section of the rules applies to machining the tops of pistons, the planar mating surfaces of the cylinders, and the INSIDE (sealing surface) of heads only. No other surfaces or parts are mentioned in the section including this phrase.
In another post you stated: "Secondly, now that myself and others have turned down all the bosses on these heads, that would require those customers to either pull those heads, or those engines, crate them, and ship them in for the above process to be performed. Here, I would have to tear the heads down, and either machine all the bosses again to the exact same diameter or machine a custom sleeve to press fit on each boss." First, it is interesting to note that the rule change has only been in effect for a week or so yet you have all these heads that have been modified. Second, maybe it's about time that the "buyer beware" and demand compliance from their engine builders. It needs to start sometime.

This brings us to the latest fiasco – I borrowed your term here as it best describes what is happening right now in SCCA and the FV rules. A simple letter to the CRB has just now garnered an instant rule "change" by publishing it as a rules "clarification". The use of rules "clarifications" is carefully spelled out by SCCA and adding a new "allowed modification" to the FV rules is definitely not within these defined uses. You commented that you were glad that the CRB had the sense to allow valve guide boss modification (without member input). It should be noted that the CRB DID NOT ask for input from the Committee on this, as has been done in the past, but rather sought the opinion of several drivers who already had these modification done on their engines. If that is COMMON SENSE, then we have another item to disagree about.

No rules are perfect, including the FV rules. The FV Ad Hoc Committee is continually working to improve them and is open to discussing any rules changes at any time. We will discuss anything that gets to us either via the letter to the CRB route or via a direct request to the Committee. The recommendations we ultimately make (or not) may not always be to the satisfaction of all.

FV Ad Hoc Committee members have all volunteered to meet once a month to discuss issues either referred to us by the CRB (via the FSRC) or suggested by a member of the FV community asking for an opinion or some other action. At least that is how it has been for the 10 years that I have served on this committee. You are entitled to your opinion that the Committee is engaged in a “witch hunt” on the guide boss issue, but I can safely say that the recommendations that the Committee agrees to have the interests of the overall FV community as our #1 priority. Can you say you have nothing to gain by angling for this rules change via a backdoor rules clarification? Of course you can't.
Sadly this incident reminds us of the time when some individuals took it upon themselves to use illegal pistons with 2mm ring grooves BEFORE the rules were changed to allow their use simply because they did not want to invest in available, legal pistons. A rules change could have been requested before their use but was not. The use of these pistons was later brought to the attention of the Committee. Rather than “punish” those who KNOWINGLY circumvented the rules (along with the drivers who knowingly or unknowingly used these illegal parts) the Committee agreed to request a rules changed to allow their use. In retrospect, this may have been a mistake. It seems to have emboldened these same individuals to continue to ignore the rules again and expect to be bailed out again and again.
It should also be noted that the Committee did not just work to legalize the AA pistons with the 2mm ring grooves. It also took it upon itself to continue to source K/S pistons and at the same time work with the AA factory to improve the design of their pistons and cylinders to insure an ample supply of legal pistons & cylinders for the class. As a result of the work with AA, new cylinders are now available that do not require the use of spacers on "universal" engine cases and which also can withstand the compression forces at their base without need for custom spacers, unlike the earlier AA cylinders.

As for your statement that the Ad Hoc Committee has no credibility, certainly SCCA has recently shown us almost as little respect as they have shown for their own rules. We are aware of our position and are constantly considering our relevance.
As a final note, it should be said that the Committee has made a proposal for a way to save the valuable heads that have been illegally modified.

Dietmar
satterley_sr
Posts: 237
Joined: June 27th, 2006, 3:27 pm

Re: Machined Valve Guide Bosses

Post by satterley_sr »

Hear, hear
sharplikestump
Posts: 183
Joined: January 12th, 2009, 2:28 pm

Re: Machined Valve Guide Bosses

Post by sharplikestump »

Dietmar wrote:********************************
Mike:
I have been following your statements on this site with interest, and I have to say that I find some of the comments not only erroneous but a bit offensive. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but since some of your comments have been directed at the FV Ad Hoc Committee, I feel a need to respond and also to inform forum members what has actually transpired regarding valve guide boss modification.

So how did this all start? Sometime in 2015, it was brought to the attention of the Committee that some individuals were modifying the valve guide boss to use valve springs with a significantly smaller diameter than stock. The Committee began investigating this and also learned that it remained controversial at the 2015 Runoffs. Smaller, lighter springs and retainers, especially “bee-hive” springs have several competitive advantages which I do not have to explain to you. It is/was the opinion of the Committee that while valve springs and retainers are only lightly restricted, "LIGHTLY RESTRICTED"? TELL ME HOW. SPRINGS MUST RESPOND TO A MAGNET, AND FASTENERS ARE FREE! modification of the cylinder head to fit "any" spring was not legal based on the wording of the FV rules. No matter the benefits, modifying the head to accommodate springs that would otherwise not fit was simply not legal per the FV rules prior to the recent rules "modification" issued by the CRB. It should also be noted that other engine builders have found or created bee-hive springs which achieve similar benefits but DO NOT require modification to the guide boss. So there are ways to achieve the benefits you claim but do it legally.
The fact of the matter is, modification of heads to fit smaller springs was done BEFORE the recent rules "modification", so let’s address the issue . Before this "modification", (CLARIFICATION)nowhere in the rules was there a mention of valve guide boss. Very clearly in the FV rules it states: "Formula Vee is a Restricted Class. Therefore, any allowable modifications, changes, or additions are as stated herein. There are no exceptions. REDICULOUS! I HAVE STATED SEVERAL, BUT YOU PEOPLE HAVE NEVER EVEN ACKNOWLEGED THEM! IF IN DOUBT, DON’T." FLAT-OUT FUNNY.....IF THAT WAS THE CASE, THE CLASS WOULD HAVE DIED 40 YEARS AGO. A QUICK SCAN THRU THE SHULTHEIS MANUAL WILL REVEAL SCORES OF CHANGES TO PRACTICALLY EVERY ENGINE COMPONENT. Hmmmm, there was no mention of an "allowed" valve guide boss modification anywhere in the rules. So I ask again, why did you think you could modify them? HOW MANY TIMES DID I ASK YOU PEOPLE FOR A SPEC OR TOLERANCE ON THE BOSSES? NEVER GOT AN ANSWER, DID I?
You have said that the modification of the boss was "machining a previously machined surface" as stated in the rules. I’m sure that some have used this phrase to justify their actions, but most would agree that this section of the rules applies to machining the tops of pistons, the planar mating surfaces of the cylinders, and the INSIDE (sealing surface) of heads only. No other surfaces or parts are mentioned in the section including this phrase. SO YOU ARE SAYING ALL THE CITATION VEES ARE NOW ILLEGAL? SAME GOES FOR ANY BRAKE DRUM THAT HAS HAD THE FLASHING REMOVED FROM THE WEEP HOLE?
In another post you stated: "Secondly, now that myself and others have turned down all the bosses on these heads, that would require those customers to either pull those heads, or those engines, crate them, and ship them in for the above process to be performed. Here, I would have to tear the heads down, and either machine all the bosses again to the exact same diameter or machine a custom sleeve to press fit on each boss." First, it is interesting to note that the rule change has only been in effect for a week or so yet you have all these heads that have been modified. Second, maybe it's about time that the "buyer beware" and demand compliance from their engine builders. It needs to start sometime.

This brings us to the latest fiasco – WHO IS INFLAMMITORY?I borrowed your term here as it best describes what is happening right now in SCCA and the FV rules. A simple letter to the CRB has just now garnered an instant rule "change" by publishing it as a rules "clarification". The use of rules "clarifications" is carefully spelled out by SCCA and adding a new "allowed modification" to the FV rules is definitely not within these defined uses. You commented that you were glad that the CRB had the sense to allow valve guide boss modification (without member input). DID NO SUCH THING. I THANK THEM FOR THEIR "CLARIFICATION".It should be noted that the CRB DID NOT ask for input from the Committee on this, as has been done in the past, but rather sought the opinion of several drivers who already had these modification done on their engines. SPECULATION!If that is COMMON SENSE, then we have another item to disagree about.

No rules are perfect, including the FV rules. The FV Ad Hoc Committee is continually working to improve them and is open to discussing any rules changes at any time. We will discuss anything that gets to us either via the letter to the CRB route or via a direct request to the Committee. The recommendations we ultimately make (or not) may not always be to the satisfaction of all. SO, ANY POSSIBLE ADVANCEMENT THAT A BUILDER OR INDIVIDUAL ACHIEVES THRU HIS INGINUITY, R&D AND EXPENSE IS TO BE PRESENTED TO YOU FOR YOUR BLESSING? DREAM ON.

FV Ad Hoc Committee members have all volunteered to meet once a month to discuss issues either referred to us by the CRB (via the FSRC) or suggested by a member of the FV community asking for an opinion or some other action. At least that is how it has been for the 10 years that I have served on this committee. You are entitled to your opinion that the Committee is engaged in a “witch hunt” on the guide boss issue, but I can safely say that the recommendations that the Committee agrees to have the interests of the overall FV community as our #1 priority. Can you say you have nothing to gain by angling for this rules change via a backdoor rules clarification? Of course you can't. NOT MUCH NEED FOR ME TO EVEN ANSWER WHEN YOU DO IT FOR ME, BUT THE FACT IS THAT I CAN! HAD I KNOWN OF THE COMBO THAT BRIAN H. CAME UP WITH, I WOULD HAVE GONE WITH THEM FROM THE START. I PLAN ON ORDERING MORE ON MONDAY.
Sadly this incident reminds us of the time when some individuals took it upon themselves to use illegal pistons with 2mm ring grooves BEFORE the rules were changed to allow their use simply because they did not want to invest in available, legal pistons. ANOTHER ITEM YOU FOUGHT, AND THERE WERE NO NON-AA PISTONS AVAILABLE W/O ALSO PURCHASING CYLINDERS THAT I FOUND TO BE OF HORRIBLE QUALITY. TELL US HOW MANY K/S PISTONS HAVE COME ASHORE IN THE LAST 5 YEARS.

ANY CHANCE YOU ARE JUST BUMMED THAT YOU ARE STUCK HOLDING INFERIOR GOODS THAT COST MULTIPLES OF THE AA SETS?

A rules change could have been requested before their use but was not. The use of these pistons was later brought to the attention of the Committee. Rather than “punish” those who KNOWINGLY circumvented the rules (along with the drivers who knowingly or unknowingly used these illegal parts) the Committee agreed to request a rules changed to allow their use. In retrospect, this may have been a mistake. It seems to have emboldened these same individuals to continue to ignore the rules again and expect to be bailed out again and again.

It should also be noted that the Committee did not just work to legalize the AA pistons with the 2mm ring grooves. YOU'RE JOKING, RIGHT? YOU FOUGHT THEM ALL THE WAY! It also took it upon itself to continue to source K/S pistons NEVER GOT THEM DID YOU! and at the same time work with the AA factory to improve the design of their pistons NO CHANGE...NONE!and cylinders to insure an ample supply of legal pistons & cylinders for the class. YOU DID NO SUCH THING! THERE WAS NEVER A SHORTAGE. As a result of the work with AA, new cylinders are now available that do not require the use of spacers on "universal" engine cases and which also can withstand the compression forces at their base without need for custom spacers, unlike the earlier AA cylinders. WHAT GARBAGE! THOSE EXISTED FOR YEARS! THAT IS WHY THEY HAVE THE DESIGNATION "E". THAT STANDS FOR "EUROPEAN". THEY HAVE ALSO BEEN IN AUSTRALIA. I FOUND OUT ABOUT THEM YEARS AGO, THANKS TO ANOTHER BUILDER BEING KIND ENOUGH TO SHARE THE INFO WITH ME. NO CREDIT TO YOU. NONE.


As for your statement that the Ad Hoc Committee has no credibility, certainly SCCA has recently shown us almost as little respect as they have shown for their own rules. We are aware of our position and are constantly considering our relevance.
As a final note, it should be said that the Committee has made a proposal for a way to save the valuable heads that have been illegally modified. JUST YOUR OPINION, BESIDES, WE NOW KNOW THAT THE RETAINERS THAT BRIAN HARDING ALERTED US TO ARE THE LIGHTEST OF ALL THAT I HAVE SEEN, SO A BIG "THANK YOU" TO HIM. THIS JUST FURTHER REINFORCES THE FACT THAT GUIDE BOSS DIAMETER IS A NON-ISSUE.

I AM WILLING TO DISCUSS THIS FURTHER, ONLY AFTER YOU FINALLY ANSWER THE QUESTIONS I HAVE PRESENTED. WITHOUT DOING SO, YOU ARE PREACHING TO YOURSELF. I HAVE NO MORE TIME FOR NONSENSE.

Dietmar
ThomasGaluardi
Posts: 10
Joined: August 26th, 2015, 8:37 am

Re: Machined Valve Guide Bosses

Post by ThomasGaluardi »

Thank you Dietmar. Well said! (written)
crypt0zink
Posts: 4
Joined: September 19th, 2014, 4:04 pm

Re: Machined Valve Guide Bosses

Post by crypt0zink »

sharplikestump wrote:
It also took it upon itself to continue to source K/S pistons NEVER GOT THEM DID YOU!
I can confirm that statement isn't correct.

[ external image ]http://imgur.com/2W0tKOj
[ external image ]http://imgur.com/8U3LcO7
sharplikestump
Posts: 183
Joined: January 12th, 2009, 2:28 pm

Re: Machined Valve Guide Bosses

Post by sharplikestump »

I stand corrected on this one point. The last I had heard (or read) from Dietmar was that there was insufficient interest to bring the last NOS pistons in. Thank you for the update. Are there any more available, or is that the last of them to be had?
Still waiting on my questions to be answered.
Dietmar
Site Admin
Posts: 650
Joined: June 24th, 2006, 11:56 am

Re: Machined Valve Guide Bosses

Post by Dietmar »

Mike:

I believe you decided at the time not to place an order.
150 pieces were brought in and at the last count, 750 were still available in Germany.

The only lack of interest might be for stock piston ring sets from K/S. Have not heard from many on trying to place an order.

Dietmar
sharplikestump
Posts: 183
Joined: January 12th, 2009, 2:28 pm

Re: Machined Valve Guide Bosses

Post by sharplikestump »

Ironically, it was the inability to acquire the stock 2.5mm ring sets that caused AA to switch to the 2.0mm rings (1966 1.3L style). This is easily validated by contacting Ron at AA. While most of us don't use full width rings, the earlier piston was actually superior for the wider rings dictated that the top groove is considerably higher on the piston. The defect with the early pistons was weak snaprings. Traveled to several tracks to replace them in customer engines. That sucked. I tried to get AA to revert back to the earlier style, and just skip the rings. If someone will step up for 5000 pistons, it could happen. Not likely, and I could not even get an absolute on that, even with sending blueprints.
The fact is I never wanted the narrow grooves, but there were zero other pistons available at the time. The advantages to the AA pistons are: much cheaper, readily available in any quantity stateside, so the price is constant, and sufficiently light to eliminate the need for custom lightweight pins. The stock pins are actually superior to the chrome moly pins that I used to pay $132/4 pins as a dealer.
jphoenix
Posts: 105
Joined: July 12th, 2013, 7:41 pm

Re: Machined Valve Guide Bosses

Post by jphoenix »

Mike said... "A QUICK SCAN THRU THE SHULTHEIS MANUAL"

I googled this "Schultheis manual" - thinking maybe it is a secret manual containing all of the secrets to FV engine building. Maybe it is, but what I found was a link to this newsletter from 1972: http://www.formulavee.us/vee_lines/VeeL ... t%2071.pdf

Seems they were arguing about FV engines back in my high school days just as vehemently as is being done today. I realize now that this "discussion" is simply part of the class.

Where might I obtain a copy of the Schultheis manual?
Jim Phoenix
2016 Red Mercury FV 44
sharplikestump
Posts: 183
Joined: January 12th, 2009, 2:28 pm

Re: Machined Valve Guide Bosses

Post by sharplikestump »

I will try to get contact info. I believe his company is "TCI", as in "Technical Consulting Inc." There was the original edition, and then an updated edition. If someone else doesn't come up with it first, I will try to have that sometime today. I think it was at the 50th. that I got to visit with him, so he still has an interest in FV.
hardingfv32
Posts: 104
Joined: June 9th, 2015, 8:04 pm

Re: Machined Valve Guide Bosses

Post by hardingfv32 »

The manual represents one man's opinion about the FV rules in the 70's. There are procedures described that are still valid but what is the point if current tech personal do not follow the same procedures.

Brian
brian
Posts: 1348
Joined: June 26th, 2006, 12:31 pm

Re: Machined Valve Guide Bosses

Post by brian »

As a competitor and scrutineer, I own and have relied on Frank's book. He also was a FF expert. His book is a bit dated since it's quite old and rules have changed. Like Brian stated, it has a lot of procedural inspection steps that are still valid and I use them at the track and in the shop.

Just a thought, some pistons come with teflon buttons instead of snap rings. I'd like to use them since side thrusting doesn't damage the groves in the piston from the pin hitting the snap rings. Anyone have thoughts regarding legality? I would think that since both are fasteners there may be a legal case for them.
The above post is for reference only and your results may vary. This post is not intended to reflect the views or opinions of SCCA and should not be considered an analysis or opinion of the rules written in the GCR.
Dietmar
Site Admin
Posts: 650
Joined: June 24th, 2006, 11:56 am

Re: Machined Valve Guide Bosses

Post by Dietmar »

Brian:

If you find any Teflon buttons, please let me know. All I could find are for the 22mm wrist pins.

Appreciated.

Dietmar
Post Reply