There is a flawed rewrite of the manifold prep rules before the BOD. The CRB has asked for input, but it will have to receive letters before 2/19 to have any effect. Please write the BOD as well since the proposal is already in front of them.
Printable View
There is a flawed rewrite of the manifold prep rules before the BOD. The CRB has asked for input, but it will have to receive letters before 2/19 to have any effect. Please write the BOD as well since the proposal is already in front of them.
Where is the text of the proposal to be found? or maybe you can post it here?
Specifically, to what parts of the proposal do you object, or what is the flaw in it?
The rewrite is here http://www.scca.org/documents/Fastra...strack-feb.pdf
Page 2
OK, I read the fast track, what is the percieved problem? Just looks like a clarification.
I notice that Fred Clark (new CRB member) is not listed with the CRB members who met regarding this proposal.
I would be inclined to follow his lead and I would need to hear/see his opinions on this matter.
After all, he and Lisa Noble (also CRB member), are very involved and respectd FV proponents.
Not true. Look again. Fred is listed at the end of the first line of the minutes.Quote:
Originally Posted by rickjohnson356
Also, Fred had an active hand in the crafting of the proposed changes before his appointment to the CRB
Dave
The intake manifold "clarifications" were initiated by the tech people at the Runoffs. Fred was the lead tech guy for FV there. I believe he also consulted with a couple of engine builders as well.
SteveO
Thanks for the responses.
Since Budawe has not clarified his objections yet and if Fred was involved in the definition of the changes, I have a good idea of whereI stand on the "issue".
I'm confident that Fred would not do anything detrimental to FV.
I've been following it on FV.org and it's obvious there are many people with vested interests on both sides of the rule proposal. Frankly, when I was talking to my engine builder about intakes, I was a little surprised to learn just how modified these supposedly "stock" intake manifolds are allowed to be. The horse is out of the barn on that, but it makes sense to try to limit any further development in that area and close up some gray area loopholes. The only problem I see with the proposal is that it creates some new gray areas regarding repairs, minimum weight, exterior surface preparation, and flange dimensions, and it may also have the unintended consequence of outlawing some stock intakes that are perfectly legal under even the most stringent interpretation of the rules.
Matt has stated the issue very well, I will add that some of the provisions in the rewrite may prove unenforceable. I say this, not only as a 31 year vee builder and competitor, but as a scrutineer as well.
I share your respect for Fred Clark and actually discussed this issue at length with him at the Runoffs. Problem is, this proposal was recommended to the BOD, without prior membership approval and will be implemented mid year rather than the expected 01/01/xx date.
I also have a ton of faith in Lisa Noble in spite of her husband's interest in this issue. By the way, Lisa is a BOD member and, not on the CRB.
Thanks for posting a response, I was not trying to be ornery regarding a lack of explanation in my comments toward your slow response time. I apologize if you were offended.
I do feel strongly that changes should not be rammed through without adequate discussion among those that are affected, not just the suppliers (Noble/Cricket Farms/VeeTech etc), but the drivers as well. The discussions should be in an open forum like ApexSpeed or fv.org etc.
Since I don't campaign a FV, I should probable just keep my nose out of other class business. But rule changes for any class should be based on the results of trying to reach a consensus among the affected parties. (for example-- how did an AL head get approved for FC so quickly-- that one frosted me.) I just did not want something similar to happen to other classes too.
I am old enough to remember when the tricks were to acid etch the inside of the manifold so as not to enlarge the outside dimension of the tubes and also use ball bearings to swedge the inside larger. I was never fast enough to where that kind of detail would make a difference in the outcome of my races, so I left it to the top guns to deal with.
Thanks for beginning this discussion to this forum, especially.
I was only directing anyone that wanted to the proposed change. Like most rule changes and/or clarifications that have been introduced in the recent past, I try to listen to all sides and then make my own decision. I am just someone that has been involved in FV for a few years and think listening is important. I try to make a decision and then I do write the CRB.
"I share your respect for Fred Clark and actually discussed this issue at length with him at the Runoffs. Problem is, this proposal was recommended to the BOD, without prior membership approval and will be implemented mid year rather than the expected 01/01/xx date."
As far as I know this issue has yet to be put the BOD, rather it has been put out for member input for concideration by the CRB.
SteveO
Sorry Steve, it's been recommended to the BOD with a request for input to the CRB.
There is a rewrite to a section of the proposed rule change that can be found here http://www.formulavee.org/interchang...php?f=3&t=2888