Has anyone had Formula Vee bearings or transmission gears micro polished? If so, what results did you get and can you recommend a company than can do it?
Printable View
Has anyone had Formula Vee bearings or transmission gears micro polished? If so, what results did you get and can you recommend a company than can do it?
Be careful with how you have your parts "micropolished"
All processes are not created equal. ;)
Give me a call if you would like to discuss further.
www.cryosciencetechnologies.com
While the transmission properties are common with most automotive applications, the air cooled Volkswagen engine is a unique technology. I would not touch any engine component without direct counsel from an experienced FV engine builder or ACVW expert, (of which most have retired or passed.) You also have to consider whether any treatment is a legal modification.Quote:
Originally Posted by DMStowell
Yup, sure can. (Below)Quote:
Originally Posted by DMStowell
This guy. :thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by stonebridge20
This subject was discussed ad nauseam by the "unofficial" ad hoc committee a few years ago. The question was whether polishing meant "removal of material" which is not a specified modification in the FV rules.
We agreed at the time that it PROBABLY was being done, but never challenged.
In OUR opinion ( unofficial committee) it was illegal.
Just a heads up.
Dietmar
Quixote Racing
Obviously not an FV guy, but if you want it to be deemed illegal, just it make it illegal. If that minute, nearly immeasurable amount of material constitutes removal, then every gear is illegal after it is run because just the teeth's meshing together removes material as they wear or polish themselves. Are pitted, old gears illegal? "No REM, micropolishing, WPC, low friction additives, etc are not allowed."Quote:
Originally Posted by Dietmar
Dietmar, you know how I feel about "cheating" vs. "the grey areas".Quote:
Originally Posted by Dietmar
Curious how you and/or the "unofficial ad hoc committee" (thank you for your efforts by the way!) envisioned the drawing of said line between gears which have had areas of natural wear from more than a half of century of use, and ones that had been polished. Obviously the polished gears will have a different appearance and areas that have been polished which wouldn't normally be subjected to wear. However, normal use over an extended period of time will cause "removal of material".
I'm guessing this is an "intent" and a we'll know it when we see it type thing. ;)
Not if an appropriate masking agent is used.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daryl DeArman
Just curious, what is the purpose of polished teeth if they actually never make physical contact under normal operating conditions?
Brian
There are areas that don't make "contact" with each other during normal operating conditions, but they certainly make "contact" with your chosen lubricants.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardingfv32
If they don't make contact with each other, then where does the wear come from?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardingfv32
;)
Not sure what the context of your statement is.
What I was getting at is that, when using the REM process you must keep non-wear surfaces free of polishing (stock appearing).
Brian
So the oil slides over the metal surfaces with less drag?Quote:
Originally Posted by Daryl DeArman
Brian
Why do you think micro polishing of transmission gears is permitted by the rules?Quote:
Originally Posted by DMStowell
Thus the problem, (IMHO as a non-lawyer/non-law school student guy ;)) listing prohibited modifications/alterations in rules where it is also stated: "If it doesn't say you can, you can't", leads to the conclusion that there are things you can do even if not explicitly stated as allowed. Which I would argue there are numerous things you can legally do, despite the "if it doesn't say you can, you can't" clause.Quote:
Originally Posted by reidhazelton
Because normal use "micro-polishes" said transmission gears. It's a matter of how little/how much/how uniform and over how much time.Quote:
Originally Posted by TJSFVGUY
Worn gears look nothing like "mirco-polished" i.e. REM.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daryl DeArman
Except the rule book lists all sorts of things that are prohibited. There are prohibited things in every section throughout the rule book.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daryl DeArman
If we are splitting hairs to the point of measuring material removed by polishing to rule a car illegal, then you can find a way to make any car illegal under the "if it doesn't say you can" clause. All that is, is a CYA clause for poorly written rules and creates a situation for a tech person to interject their opinion on something. Example; I saw a tech person hold three prod cars (with about 7 national championships between them) over night, into Monday morning because all three (and every prod car for that matter) had removed the louvered trim panel that goes over the cowl between the windshield wipers. That tech guy was locked down hard on that clause in the rule book.
you would all be driving FORMCARS lol
Everything you ever wanted to know and probably a little more about REM-ISFQuote:
Originally Posted by Hardingfv32
https://gearsolutions.com/features/h...sepower-thief/
So.. is it CHEATING if the rules DON'T say you CAN DO IT. I'd say "yes" (qualified).. however, there are MANY places in the rules that DON'T say you can do it, but everyone DOES IT. Are we all "CHEATING".. I'd guess YES, but it can't be proven and shouldn't be challenged and usually isn't, but that doesn't mean it WON'T be challenged - even possibly by a CSA.Quote:
Originally Posted by provamo
I recall a situation from YEARS AND YEARS ago.. in Showroom stock when several cars were ruled illegal (at the Runoffs, no less) for rear view mirrors.. The rules said that rear view mirrors are FREE.. however it did NOT say that you could drill new holes in the bodywork to mount the 'free mirrors'. This is a typical example of 'tech specialty INTERPRETATION' of 'some rule' that 'caught their eye' (for unknown reasons). There is no good answer here .. and there never will be.
It is practically and realistically IMPOSSIBLE to write a complete rules set that is in fact COMPLETE and CLEAR in ALL ASPECTS of EVERY POSSIBILITY that exists in the universe. I'd guess that NASCAR and F1 come closest to such rules, yet we continually see challenges in both.
I think MOST of the drivers and MOST of the officials (including those that WRITE the rules) are doing the absolute BEST they can to WRITE .. and then INTERPRET the rules as they are written.
Just something we have to live with .. or race in a class where there ARE no rules .. but I don't think there is such a class.
(Makes me think of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid when Butch was challenged for leadership of the 'hole in the wall' clan):D
Steve, FV80
Yep. Which is why I said it's a "we'll know when we see it" type thing. Removal of material can't be the prohibitive test as normal use/wear removes material it's a matter of degree.Quote:
Originally Posted by TJSFVGUY
Exactly. That's the problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by reidhazelton
Exactly. Right there with the "intent" and "if in doubt/don't" clauses.Quote:
. . .you can find a way to make any car illegal under the "if it doesn't say you can" clause. All that is, is a CYA clause for poorly written rules and creates a situation for a tech person to interject their opinion on something.
:D Correction. If no one ever read the rules for what they actually said instead of what they thought they said, you would all be driving Formcars. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by provamo
I disagree. It can be done so much better and it doesn't take 700 pages to do it.Quote:
Just something we have to live with .. or race in a class where there ARE no rules .