FV connecting rods

[BLS]

In the latest fastrac, there is an alternate connecting rod now allowed. Since our parts problems do not include connecting rod availability, I have no clue why this one part is now allowed a substitute. A crower part #, with perhaps the worst commercial website I've ever visited...

Anyone have any idea why? Or why only a crower rod?

EDIT: it is a recommendation not already done. I misread the news...

[Hardingfv32]

There are no supply issues if you like spending $3-400 for a set of blueprinted (reconditioned) rods. The new rods are about $450 retail. They have pinned rod caps the make assembly much faster (cost savings?) and very precise.

Cap alignment becomes important when you start spending good time in the 7k rpm range…. Daytona? This part is good for the average racer, as the big spenders are going to run 7k even if it means an occasional blow engine. At least with this part everyone can have a bottomed that lives above 7k rpm.

I would say Crower is adapting/customizing a 'cast' rod blank. It might be possible to get it done elsewhere. Feel free to investigate and present a proposal to the CRB.

Brian

[BLS]

Thanks Brian. My questions seem to read as though I was opposed but I am not. I just wondered why this one part and one supplier. I was thinking that the 1200 and later engines used the same rod, but that is not the case. Lots of nice rods at good prices available for the 1300+... Maybe crower is the only supplier with a rod for the 1200. The GCR already allows replacements of same material and construction, so maybe the crower meets that definition.

[Hardingfv32]

No one makes a 1200 rod. What would be the market? Crower has a blank universal 'casting' that they can apply a CNC machining program to get a '1200' configuration. Chance are very good that they have a forged blank too for the same price. Machining from billet would also another reasonably 'priced' alternative.

You could do the same thing with pistons, except everyone uses a forged blanks.

Brian

[Bill Bonow]

http://scca.cdn.racersites.com/prod/...%20Minutes.pdf

Start sending your opinions: www.crbscca.com

[SOseth]

As I understand it this has been developed from their sportsman line of rod blanks. It dimensionally the same as the stock rod. It comes in at a consistently reasonable weight, is inexpensive and is available to anyone that chooses to set up an account with Crower or one of their dealers.

SteveO

[Hardingfv32]

No, this is not correct. The CRB has approved the change and sent the recommendation to the Board.

Brian

[BLS]

I made a mistake in my reading. I thought it was an already approved change, not a recommendation.

Barry

[BLS]

is inexpensive

Since there is nothing on the Crower website, what does inexpensive mean? Just curious.

[Daryl DeArman]

I imagine cheaper than Pauter.

Most Crower sportsman rods are in the $100/each range. That's less than 1/2 the price of a Pauter.

[Bill Bonow]

Post # 2 says these rods will be in the $450 per set range.

[sracing]

While $450 sounds like a lot of money, it compares favorably to what it costs to build a good set of 1200 rods. (Balancing, end to end, and ARP Rod bolts will get you to $400+ easily). The problem is : You probably have a set of decent rods now, and to be competitive/reliable you may have to spend the extra $450 on your next rebuild. Add that to what you are already paying..... Also, while the weight have to adhere to current rules, the current rules only specify the OVERALL weight. I don't know what the Crowers come in at, but big end rotating weight is twice as important as small end reciprocating weight So.. they COULD be a huge advantage.

A real shame since a 1600 FST H Beam Rod set with ARP's is under $250 retail. (and they are balanced overall and end to end.. ) (an I-Beam set just as adequate for racing is about 1/2 that...

[Bill Bonow]

No real spec listed on the Crower rod end to end length. A longer rod is another potential for additional performance. Should be detailed in the spec.

[BLS]

$450 is inexpensive by my definition. If it saves a bottom end and case it is even cheaper... OTOH, it all depends upon how much more work is involved after you get the rods.

[Hardingfv32]

A longer rod is another potential for additional performance.

Longer is better is a gross over simplification. The optimum length is tied to a host of other engine specifications/variables. There is absolutely no one in FV that has done the research required to determine the optimum rod length for a FV engine. I base that on the fact that there are only one or two builders out there with a dyno good enough to measure what is going to be a very subtle change.

No length spec is required if the part was homologated by the CRB to be a replacement. They are not going to approve something that is not in the length range of the stock FV part.

Brian

[sracing]

$450 is inexpensive by my definition. If it saves a bottom end and case it is even cheaper... OTOH, it all depends upon how much more work is involved after you get the rods.

At this point in time yes. BUT how we got here and created this problem was via poor rule changes;

Most stock rods were in the 500-530 gr range. Via some bad input the rod weights were lowered. Then due to ARP's they were lowered again. So we end up with a 425 gr rod from a 525 one. Where did the metal come off? Lots of places with much at the big end where the most advantages were and the rods were weakened. So now we need a new rod. So here were are. If the rules for rods were 475 eg. we would not have the problem and stock rods would be 1/2 the price.

I don't know how these new rods will balance out, but IF they vary several grams end to end, you have more labor and the price will be closer to $600.

[rgu]

The thing that offends me about this change is the rule making methodology. A problem has been identified and there are many solutions. Sometimes a call is made for discussion yet in this and other instances a single vendor tells the CRB what to do and they promptly do it.
In this case it would be cheaper to merely limit the time spent over 7000 rpm. This can be done many ways and here are a few.


Convert to a spec manifold like they did in Australia and even limit its sale to 2 per SCCA driver’s license number.

Use a restrictor plate.

Mandate a tire with a larger rolling radius.

Some years ago with crude computer systems, we saw the FVs getting 7000 rpm at Pocono for over 4 seconds. Ray Carmody showed up to a race after Pocono with a plastic bag with a bunch of aluminum and steel parts from his Pocono engine. These were just the parts that were in his exhaust manifold!
It’s your club, at least demand rule-making with large scale member input.

[sracing]

Talked with some folks and since the rule is open for comments and not approved yet, I don't see it as a big deal. No DIRECT impact to price and some increased availability. I see it as a shame that we are spending more time trying to keep the 1200's running, but if that is what is wanted this is one of the things that will help.

Nothing new, since we already allow dozens of parts that are not VW made.

Write the board with your comments one way or the other, or just ignore the conversation. Like FV it will be gone soon...

[Hardingfv32]

... A problem has been identified and there are many solutions. Sometimes a call is made for discussion yet in this and other instances a single vendor tells the CRB what to do and they promptly do it.

Just not practical for the CRB to come up with a better solution when dealing with the intractable FV competitor population. This is a simple cost and performance neutral substitution. An engine builder has gone to the trouble to have this part made and then presented it to the CRB. No one is pushing this down the CRB's throat. The fact is, that except for the cap pins (best feature!), this part qualifies as a direct replacement under the current rules. We are lucky that it is being made available to everyone and not a proprietary item.

As much as many current FV competitor desire for the class to be managed as a highly controlled spec class, it simply is not going to happen. The rules were originally written to allow development. You simply cannot undo that at this point. Development is still happening and will never stop for those investing time and money to be competitive.

Brian

[butch deer]

I long for the days of 5500RPM and 40 cars showing up almost every race.

[Bruce]

When this was brought up, I searched fastrack to find any information. Only today when the October issue was released do I find any reference to con rods. Are you getting advanced notice of fastrack or insider information?

[Hardingfv32]

Fastrack pre release notification from SCCA.

Brian

[BLS]

As Brian said,

Go to SCCA website - downloads, fastrack news, and click club racing for the early release.

http://scca.cdn.racersites.com/prod/...rack-oct_1.pdf