Formula Vee RunOffs Meeting

[dc]

To all persons interested in Formula Vee as a class within SCCA…

From the FV Ad Hoc Committee,

Please be advised that SCCA has seen fit to provide a minimum 2 hour time slot starting at 4 PM on Friday, Sept 25, 2009 at the Turn 8 Pavilion (at Road America) for discussions surrounding a number of issues related to the FV class. Please make every effort to attend—if you cannot attend, try to find someone that can be there to represent your thoughts on the various subjects. This meeting will discuss topics related to FORMULA VEE ONLY.

The primary topics are:

1). An end to the escalation of intake manifold issues. SCCA feels that we should be able to write a rule that will eliminate further “interpretations” of the rules in the future – whether it be a spec manifold or a 10 page description, whether it means a TIGHTENING of the current rules or a LOOSENING of them, whatever it takes, they would like to see it happen.

2). SCCA would like to see a set of rules that would stabilize the class for the near term future. If you are aware of any loopholes, or have thoughts that might apply, please let us know. The idea is that the class would return to its early roots of ‘arrive and drive’ rather than the ‘gotta have it’ latest tweak deciding many of the results.

3). Errors and Omissions – If you are aware of any rules that were previously in the FV rule set that should still be there and are not, please bring them to our attention. It also follows that if you are aware of any rules that are in error in any manner – measurements, tolerances, etc – or maybe got changed erroneously in the rewrite 2 years ago, let us know about them.

4). SCCA would like to see a plan—or not—for the future of the class. That would include alternative engine sources (with a reasonable future) or alternates for other parts as well. This is WIDE OPEN and they would like to have your thoughts.

Recognizing that many of you might like to attend but just cannot swing the trip, we request that you send email comments on any or all of the above topics back to me (Steve@WedgeRacing.com) as a member of the Committee. I will share your responses with the other members of the Committee and with the ‘powers that be’ in SCCA so that they can be hashed out (hopefully) during the meeting.

Several previous attempts to get ideas and/or consensus on changing or modifying the class for the long term have come to naught. Please think openly about the problems and issues and pour out any ideas you might have. SCCA and the Committee will attempt to sort through them all and come up with a plan that we can all live with. Keep in mind that one of the possible outcomes is that NOTHING changes and the class eventually dies.

It’s not lost on us that items #1,2 and 3 are in direct opposition to item #4—the first ones are for the near term—2 years or more—the 4th item is for further down the road.

*PLEASE* either attend the meeting, or find a rep, and/or send your emails back to me on these subjects. Actually, even if you do plan to attend, if you have any thoughts or ideas that you would like to bring up, it would be helpful if you could send an email with a brief description so that we can do some research and put some prior thought into it before the meeting.

Please pass this to ANYONE who you know who is interested in FV as an SCCA class.

Thanks for your time and, LONG LIVE FORMULA VEE!!


Stevan Davis, FV80 and the FV Ad Hoc Committee
Steve Oseth
Bruce Livermore
Mike Kochanski
Dietmar Bauerle


see http://www.FormulaVee.us

[Bill Bonow]

4). SCCA would like to see a plan—or not—for the future of the class. That would include alternative engine sources (with a reasonable future) or alternates for other parts as well. This is WIDE OPEN and they would like to have your thoughts.

Several previous attempts to get ideas and/or consensus on changing or modifying the class for the long term have come to naught. Please think openly about the problems and issues and pour out any ideas you might have. SCCA and the Committee will attempt to sort through them all and come up with a plan that we can all live with. Keep in mind that one of the possible outcomes is that NOTHING changes and the class eventually dies.

It’s not lost on us that items #1,2 and 3 are in direct opposition to item #4—the first ones are for the near term—2 years or more—the 4th item is for further down the road.

If # 4 truely is wide open and several previous attempts have come to naught, I wonder if a serious proposal that included proven facts, performance data tested over the past 5 years, bolt in alternative engines and other component parts with lower costs and increased availability would be welcomed? Or met with pitch forks and torches?

[Stan Clayton]

I wonder if a serious proposal ... would be welcomed? Or met with pitch forks and torches?

You really have to wonder...?

Just kidding, Vee Guys...you can step away from the pitchforks now...

[dc]

So what was discussed, and how did the meeting go? Where is the report for those of us who could not attend? Were the potential, regional and national racers that were not able to attend represented well or at all? Was anything solved? Were parts shortages discussed? What became of the manifold issues, considering the winner of the event was using one of the debated manifolds?



I'm guessing that with 4 days since this meeting took place, having heard nothing publicly either here or on FormulaVee.org, the status quo was a popular subject, and nothing really was served by this ad hoc meeting.

[Matt King]

I'm guessing that with 4 days since this meeting took place, having heard nothing publicly either here or on FormulaVee.org, the status quo was a popular subject, and nothing really was served by this ad hoc meeting.

Pretty much. Most of the discussion focused on intake manifolds. We were presented with a few options to consider, including adding more limits on exterior dimensions and a control manifold. I forget the other two right now. Very few errors and omissions were discussed and the discussion about the future of the class fizzled. There was some discussion about SCCA Enterprises being willing to commission reproduction cylinder heads and engine cases, which I thought was crazy, considering there are already aftermarket sources for those parts, albeit not stock replicas in most cases. I wrote a letter to the CRB supporting a spec intake manifold and suggested that would be an ideal part for Enterprises to commission.

The discussion about the future of the class didn't go very far. Most people just wanted to talk about sourcing replica parts to replace the ones we currently use rather than introduce new parts.

[Bill Bonow]

Hey Matt,

Remember when Livermore was talking about the Australian "control" manifold including why and how it was used as well as how it killed FV 1200 in OZ? I couldn't say anything in the meeting (for the obvious reason), so I contacted my mate in NSW, Ray Filetti, President of the FVANWS http://www.fvansw.asn.au/ to give me the straight skinny on the FV 1200 control manifold. Here is what he said:

I can confirm that the object points made about the 1200 manifolds are completely wrong. The control 1200 manifold was produced years before there was any Formula Vee 1600. t was introduced to attempt to eliminate the blow-out in modified standard manifold costs. Nothing more. Also, there has never been any requirement by CAMS that the 1200 cars and the 1600 cars should have the same performance. Also, CAMS never reclassified anyone. This was all done withn the Formula Vee Association of Australia, commencing in 2002. We have Formual Vee 1200, and we have Formula Vee 1600. Both fight for their own formal championships, so each class is valid. As for destroying 1200's permanently, yes, 1200 numbers have dropped in the two main Formula Vee states, but they have remain at a stable level in all other states, and we hope to see them increase over time in the two main states.

Ray

[Steve Davis]

Hey Matt,

Remember when Livermore was talking about the Australian "control" manifold including why and how it was used as well as how it killed FV 1200 in OZ?

*MY* best recollection was that Livermore argued that the spec manifold did *NOT* have anything to do with the fall off of FV1200 in OZ.

Regardless - please give us a little time to come up with a report on the meeting - we have hardly gotten home from a VERY INTENSE week (or more) of racing and, at least in my case, 2 20 hour tows. Things have been sitting at home for 2 weeks waiting for my return and I have other SCCA obligations beyond the Committee/FV stuff (I have 3 events that need to be set up on MSR for Atlanta Region right now).

We'll try to put something together in the next couple of weeks, but PLEASE cut us some slack here. We're TIRED and worn out at the moment.

Sorry,
Steve, FV80

[Bruce Livermore]

OK, first off I have been a proponent of a spec manifold since we first looked into it in about 2004. I believe to this day that we screwed the pouch by not implementing one at that time.

My point was that the 1200 spec manifold has been said to have "not worked" in OZ when in fact it has worked as well or better than hoped.

I was my understanding that FV 1200 and FV 1600 were being combined in some parts of OZ ( I believe there are multiple regions with somewhat different rules and championships) and that the 1200 spec manifold had a second purpose beyond cost control: to move the 1200 performance closer to the 1600 performance.

I will recontact my sources and refresh my information which may now be out of date.

Overall, the whole point of my comment was to contradict the perception that the FV 1200 spec manifold had not been a success in OZ.

I guess that point was misunderstood.

Bruce

[dc]

In a class where people are resistant to ANY non-minor changes over time, why wouldn't a spec'd, one source manifold work? Make it the same for everyone, make it a flat reasonable cost, keep the flow numbers close enough so that people don't feel the need to buy 8 of them, and make the issue go away. Seems simple to me, but what do I know?


Steve, sorry for appearing impatient. The internet allows instant communication and feedback, and after 4 days of hearing nothing at all about the ad hoc meeting on Friday, it occurred to me that it was probably a waste of time. Again. The brief post on the west coast forum has already confirmed that for me..

[problemchild]

Doug,

You are absolutely right .... especially for people like you and I who are in the market for manifolds in the coming monthes. If only it was that simple ....

We need an independant person/company to emerge who will build, develop, and equalize several hundred manifolds for delivery by the end of 201?. Would that be SCCA Enterprises?

If that is not enough of an obstacle, how will the current racers feel who collectively spent 10s of thousands of dollars this season for their recent manifold or upgrade? And what about you and I who will have to spend big $ between now and control manifold availability. It is a difficult situation. Other than establishing respect, stability, and cooperation among the current manifold producers, what option is there?

Greg Rice

[Matt King]

One way or another, someone is going have to come up with a set of specs for manifolds that is deemed "legal" per the existing and whatever additional rules are being proposed to stem the proliferation currently happening. Once that has happened, the powers that be could build or acquire a few manifolds with those specs, flow them, and then ask Enterprises or whatever vendor is selected, to duplicate that number as closely as possible using cheaper processes than the acid-porting and ball honing that it currently takes to make one. This was already done for the Australian control manifold so it's not an insurmountable task.

[Daryl DeArman]

why wouldn't a spec'd, one source manifold work? Make it the same for everyone, make it a flat reasonable cost, keep the flow numbers close enough so that people don't feel the need to buy 8 of them, and make the issue go away. Seems simple to me, but what do I know?

Doug, as you know I no longer own/race a FV and am not a SCCA member, so the rule doesn't affect me in any way. However, I always have an opinion and have known an FV AdHoc member for years. I spoke with him very briefly about my concerns about a spec manifold about a month ago.

#1 is enforcement. How do you know the Spec manifold has not been touched at all?

#2 is quality control. How much better might manifold 242 be than 113?

#3 you force everybody to have to buy one if you make it spec. Many folks have spent big bucks on their manifolds--instantly worth zero.

#4 Why not make the manifolds OPEN? Do whatever you wish, however you wish. Without goofy rules about averages and where to measure and where it doesn't matter and weight. It is very labor intensive (expensive) to gain an advantage within the letter of the rules. Make it "OPEN" and it won't be expensive at all to make a manifold that is better than that crappy intake port, tiny valve, small cam and soda straw carb will support. Open manifolds are also really simple to enforce. They keep manifold builders in business. Keeps Enterprises out of it. Doesn't force anybody to buy anything. I know too radical for the FV folks to embrace, no matter how sensible.

Enjoy the class. It was a blast. If F600 or FFit doesn't evolve the way I hope, when I am ready to get back into a car (girls out of college) I'll probably go right back to FV and have a blast.

[Bruce]

I wrote the short synopsis of the meeting. What I got out of it was, there is a problem and someone had the foresight to put this together. They wanted to get as many people together with a common cause at a place where it was most logical. The Runoff was that place. Where else does someone from every part of the nation gather? Nothing was written in stone. Suggestions were sought and given. This was just a step to help solve some of the problems. I personally would like to thank them.

[Agitator]

Been out of the loop for a few years, but thinking of sticking my toe back in the water in the next year, so forgive my ignorance...but what exactly is being done differently to these "monster" manifolds? I know a couple of guys that ran with the front pack at the runoffs last weekend that weren't running them and didn't seem to be giving up much to anyone but Varacins.

A "good" manifold has always been something we're all looking for, but I'm trying to figure out what truly seperates the "new" ones. Is there a new process or are the rules being interepretted differently now?

[Matt King]

The ends of the manifold from the bend down to the flange look like a snake swallowed a rat. Apparently they flow better and are claimed to be worth a couple HP compared to existing designs, but there are some engine builders who say they have not necessarily seen those gains back to back. The "new process" capitalizes on the supposed gray area that was created by specifiying only certain areas of the manifold tubing that are controlled by specific measurements. Rather than abiding by the clause in the rules that says "if in doubt, don't," one manifold builder has chosen to interpret that as "since they only restrict certain areas to a defined measurement, I will enlarge other areas to whatever measurement I want."

[Hardingfv32]

Jim

I'm the guy who makes the Monster Manies. I visited with you on race day in your motor-home. We talked only about your car.

What allows me to make a bigger (ID) manifold is the fact that I do selective etching of the inside of the manifold. 10-15 years ago they decided not to measure the OD of any of the bends because there was some difficulty. We now only measure in specified straight areas. These are the only areas I etch. Having a min weight to comply with, I take all the weight NOT removed from the bends and do extra etching in the straight areas. A stock manifold is .040 wall thickness, std prepped manifold etched to .030 everywhere, and a Monster Manifold is .020-.018 in the measured areas. The ID that is .020 bigger is of some flow benefit.

The bends represent 50% of the manifolds length/area. Having NOT been etched OR being measured, I'm now able to enlarge to unheard of size. In theory the bends should measure about .994, the rule for the measured area, but way before me the guys started making the bends larger because they knew there was no controls in these areas. They slowly approached 1.050 which is the limit before you start cracking the tubing of an ETCHED bend. Remember, all other manifold makers etch the complete interior of the manifold. Having much thicker (non-etched) tubing to work with, I can expand (ball) the bends to about 1.120. 1.050 (std manifold) vs 1.120 (Monster Manifold) does make for an improvement in flow.

Generally, my manifolds test at least 1 HP better than the very best Kochanski manifolds which are very limited and sell for about $1000. My manifolds are readily available for about $1200. They take about 3 days to make if you consider process losses from failed manifolds. I need about 8 hrs to sand out the steps that form internally from the masked acid etching. These manifolds were designed and processes developed to take maximum benefit of the rules as written and INTERPRETED by the officials and other manifold makers. These manifolds were engineered to be "good". There is no luck involved as was the case in the past.

I enlarge the bends to whatever I want because I'm the only one who CAN!

Brian

[Agitator]

Thanks for the explanation, Matt. It's kind of what I figured. It seems to me there was always an unwritten gentleman's agreement that we wouldn't touch those gray areas (concerning manifolds) in the past. Oh, well. FV has always had folks that are genius at interpretting various gray areas, some to their demise, others to their benefit.

Fortunately, I won't go shopping for a new manifold for a year or so. Maybe it will be resolved by then

James

[Agitator]

Brian,
Sorry, you posted while i was writing a reply!

You met with my dad, I'm sure. He was up there supporting Donnie Isley in one of our cars. I talked to my dad briefly after the race, but will definitely talk to him about your discussion when I get a chance. I'm hoping to get back in our car within the next year or so.

It's been a while since I've posted on the board, and usually clarify that it's me, not my dad. He's much smarter than me, and stays off of discussions boards for the most part!

Cheers,
James Brookshire IV

[formulasuper]

Would a manifold with no specs other than spec max ID restrictor plate on both ends work? Sorta like a SIR, only different. I don't know, just asking.

[Hardingfv32]

I live and race mostly on the West Coast and as such might be out of the FV mainstream social network. I had no idea that there was unwritten gentleman's agreement about manifolds. I assumed it was just the lack of will or skill to make something better. It seemed like poor racing etiquette to discuss my ideas ahead of time with the competition.

This has now become a "ego" thing with me... a competition. I can guaranty that I will spend the time necessary to maintain the edge that my manifolds have.

Brian

[Hardingfv32]

A spec ID on either or both ends (at current HP levels) is not noticeable on the dyno or flow bench (@24" water). Flow seems to be controlled by restrictions over large distances... say multiple inches.

Brian

[Agitator]

I was merely inquiring, as I've been out of it a while. I wasn't passing any judgement, although I will admit that I don't think that this type of modification was ever in the intent of the FV rules. Then again, I don't think the intent of the Formula Ford rules were ever meant to support $13K engines!

In my opinion, the tech inspectors have failed the FV community by allowing this to happen. The "If in doubt, don't" rule (in my opinion) shouldn't give free reign to modify the entirity of the manifold to "unheard of size" EXCEPT where it is measured.

I will never fault someone for looking at areas where they can make improvement, or even interpretting the rules differently. But the SCCA needs to step in at some point and consider the intent of the rules.

It was never my intent to convey any hostility, so I'm not sure where the ego comment came from. I'm sure if I research the threads, I can review the argument, as I know this board didn't let it drop without some heated debate.

I will say that it seems arrogant to state that you are the only one that CAN make these types of modifications. Trust me, you may be the only one that IS doing it, but certainly not the only one that CAN.

James Brookshire IV

[Daryl DeArman]

A spec ID on either or both ends (at current HP levels) is not noticeable on the dyno or flow bench (@24" water). Flow seems to be controlled by restrictions over large distances... say multiple inches.

Brian

So, based on your knowledge and experience you are saying that a restrictor only 1/2 thick", .994" diameter isn't going to hurt flow/affect HP because of it's relative thinness? Is this because of the abnormally long intake manifold design and the inertia of the a/f mass allowing the total flow to remain constant with the velocity increasing through the restrictor?

If that's the case and you were allowed to do ANYTHING to the manifold while the carb, intake port and valve rules remained the same how much more HP do you think would be attainable? In other words at what point is does something else become flow limiting?

[Hardingfv32]

You conveyed no hostility. By "ego" I mean it is more important to know I have the best manifolds than to actually make money off them. Call it a competition among the mechanics, builders, etc.

I have made no secret of my general techniques. I believe ONE of the reasons the rules are being changed is that no one has figured out how to do it. I'll stand by my statement that "I'm the only one who CAN" until I SEE otherwise. Please accept it as a friendly challenge. You have all of next year to use what ever you develop!

Brian

[Hardingfv32]

I have no answer for the lack of effectiveness to small restriction. My guess is that the interior ID of about .955" is really small for 62 HP @ 6500 RPM. My work indicates the manifold is the restrictor in the system, not the carb or heads. I cannot state at what point this relationship changes.

Under the current rules I might be able to reach an OD in the range of 1.140". It takes a rust free core (rare) and a lot of luck. You don't know the limit until you have reached a failure mode. Maybe a 1/4 HP gain at this maximum size.

Brian

[sracing]

A few points I want to make that have been distorted here and in other threads.

1. ANY increase in air flow through the carb results in additional HP. Someone who says a manifold that flows more air on the bench but doesn't make HP, is blowing smoke up your butt and/or didn't install the induction system correctly or tune it.

2. As Brian pointed out.. The vast majority of pumping losses in an FV in it's operating range are in the carb and manifold. (at this point in time). While head/valve flow is important, more people waste money there than in any other place. (BTW, "Pumping losses" are where the HP is lost. At some point the engine is working harder to get air into it than it can produce in HP. All engines are limited in HP by these pumping losses.)

3. Restrictor plates simply limit the air into the induction system. They have a tendency to equalize all other induction components, but only to a degree. For example (ignore the numbers here, I am only giving examples) assume a range of manifolds that flow 62 to 70 CFM. If I install a restrictor of some kind, that flow may now be 60 to 64.
Without restrictor I have a 8 CFM range from a good manifold to a top one. With the restrictor, the change is only 4 CFM. The smaller the restrictor the more the equalization, but it will NEVER make things equal.

The restrictor accomplished nothing other than to slow everyone down. All racers are still going to want the biggest manifold, restrictor or not.

4. In regards to the restrictor used in FST, while it does tend to equalize the carb flow (see above), it's primary intent was to keep top RPM and speeds down. (and save engines). The intake manifold on a FST can easilly support 100HP normally asperated, so trying to equalize manifolds is not really much of an issue. The pumping losses in a FST are all at the carb (and restrictor).

[sracing]

One other thing... We have been dynoing and building these things ACVW for about 20 years now. 20 years ago we saw 56-57 HP good engines. Since then heads that produce 2+HP, coils and plug wires that produce 1+HP, Carbs that produce 2+, headers that produce 2+ HP, oils and additives that produced 1+HP, rings that produce 2+, and manifolds that were 1+, have been touted... We have TESTED THEM ALL. Aside from some header increases and the most recent manifolds NONE have done what they claimed. (Or we would all have 65+ HP... We DON'T).

My point is that over the years, drivers have been upgrading all the above and got nothing for their money. The newer manifolds are the only thing that have shown any reliable statistically valid HP AFAIAC. Had we not blown all the money on the fabled other components this new $1200 item wouldn't be such a big issue.

We have dyno testing engines and components for 900HP engines down to the FV. We have done testing for several large companies (even one for a TV commercial and a couple for major motorsports Catalogs). We collect all the pertinent data and make sure it is statistically valid. These companies demand it. These tests included, air filters, MAF intakes, oils, additives and ECM chips and even magnets on the fuel lines and that doesn't include the things we independently tested.

My guess is that 50% or more of all the money spent in motorsports at a grassroots level was wasted. Someday I may post all the data on Spec Miata motors that we have tested. From junk yard stock to HIGH dollar "pro-built" spec motors. These guys (Spec Miata owners) are REALLY being ripped. (I don't have a lot of FF data, so I won't comment there, but I am highly suspect based upon the ones we have tested.)

Unless you have a family member with a dyno, it is buyer beware in all racing...

[sracing]

As long as I am sitting here waiting for the epoxy to harden.... You can do some modeling of the induction system on a Vee but due to the weird manifold with split port and siamesed intakes it's a little tough. We have a computer model set up, but it's not quite as dependable as a typical V8. Trying to determine the impact to the HP curve with a restrictor is problematic. The turbulance in the runners and the back surges from the intake ports really dictate that you would have to do dyno tests to see true numbers. Is the restrictor a flat plate or is it port matched to the facing port? A lot of things would change dynamically.

[chequer57]

With regard to control manifolds might I suggest that you email Paul Corcoran paulcor@iprimus.com.au the person who made the first batch of control manifolds and oversaw their introduction in 2004 to get info and back ground. He was the Formula Vee National Technical Director at the time.

http://www.fvawa.org.au/B04-070%20Fo...0Manifolds.pdf

[sracing]

Ian, Do you know off hand the retail price and how it flowed compared to the units that you were using typically?

Jim
SR

[Bruce Livermore]

Ian, Thanks for the contact information for Paul. I am trying to contact him to get an update on the status of the manifolds today. He and I corresponded back in 2004 but sadly, it didn't go further at that time. I will check my e-mail address to see if it is correct. If you have the chance, let Paul know that I am trying to contact him again.

Jim, the information Paul shared with me in 2004 was that these manifolds flowed considerably better than any modified VW parts they had to compare them to. He also was charged with making them all flow within 1% of each other which his data showed he had done.

When these were implemented in 2004, they also dropped the combustion chamber volume on the 1200's to 38 cc's, trying to upgrade the performance of the 1200's closer to that of the 1600's. That is where I got the idea (possibly incorrect) that they were aiming to combine these classes in at least some areas of Australia. The rules of that era also show two engine choices in a single class as far as I read it which also led me to believe they were being combined.

For our purposes, I think we want to obtain net performance approximately equal to our best manifolds today. A manifold like this plus some kind of restrictor plate under the carb might just do it. Only testing would/will tell. We are looking into how to get a hold of a manifold or two.

The price FOB OZ in 2004 was $215 US. They apparently did have some scattered problems getting carbs jetted right for this manifold and the increased compression ratio. Per Paul, this was just a matter of rejetting, possibly requiring more changes than most drivers were used to. But per Paul, the problems always got resolved once properly identified and properly addressed. It wasn't quite a bolt on performance improvement, but almost.

Bruce

[Hardingfv32]

I wonder how the center section is made... cast? The rest is straight forward.

Brian

[chequer57]

Ian, Do you know off hand the retail price and how it flowed compared to the units that you were using typically?

Jim
SR

Jim,

The control manifold when rolled out were $350AU pre purchase $400AU after production.

The acid etched balled manifolds were going around the $1000-$1200 mark around 1999 2000 as people were importing Vee manifolds from the states. We were also having problems with people re brazing manifolds or having problems with them being a bit weak.

The introduction of control manifolds stopped a lot of bitching about manifolds.

Regards,

Ian

[chequer57]

I wonder how the center section is made... cast? The rest is straight forward.

Brian

Brian from memory it's a casting but Paul could answer that question.

Regards,

Ian

[Jacer]

Hi all,an interesting bit of lunchtime reading! During 2002 to 2003 Greg Hepburn,Paul Corcoran and myself did some flow work towards formulating the current 1200 control manifold in Australia. From memory the manifold flowed aproximately 10cfm than a current top 1200 manifold in Australia which put it around the flow of a 1500 single port manifold (same o.d.) or roughly the same as our 29mm restrictored 1600 manifold. The manifold is stainless mandrel bent with a stainless cast centre section.
Paul was responsible for the construction of these manifolds on behalf of the FVAA(australian vees).They were random numbered, had the logo of the FVAA and all flowed had to pass something like a 1% flow variation test before delivery.
David
p.s. Ian I could dream of getting 1k for a manifold

[chequer57]

p.s. Ian I could dream of getting 1k for a manifold

DC, Mr Tucker didn't blink at that price to get one from the US.....

[Steve Davis]

Jim,

The control manifold when rolled out were $350AU pre purchase $400AU after production.

...
Ian

Ian,
Are new control manifolds available in OZ today?? If so, how much and who sells them??
tks,
Steve, FV80

[Hardingfv32]

Stainless... I wondered about the beautiful finish. It would solve all the rust issues and last forever.

I found the center T section in stainless as a tubing type fitting. That leaves the flanges on the ends to source.

Brian

[Jacer]

Paul's Mate John runs a water jet cutter and flanges were done by him so he would have that program on file. They (manifolds) aren't available today as the original's were pre-ordered plus 10 or so for stock as with the introduction of 1600 it was thought having large stock would be meaningless. Suprisingly there is a demand for them here at present.

[Steve Davis]

Interesting... any idea how many manifolds were made ?
Steve