FV at Laguna Runoffs ??

[a. pettipas]

The car Mike drives was designed and built by him and his dad. I think they are willing to sell them, but only if a group of about 5 people were interested. Finding 5 people willing to drop the coin needed is likely not going to happen.

It is important to point out though, that it is not just the car. With the amount of time and effort Mike and Al put into the car, he could be just as dominant in a Mysterian, Caracal or Vortech (or whatever for that matter) if he drove it.

My opinion anyway.

ty for the reply... point concerning manufacturer understood and the reason I carefully said the SS AM-5/Veetech/Varicins *combo* is an ass-kicker.

[problemchild]

Expensive mistakes in more ways than one.

Congrats to everyone it was a great race to watch.

Have any appeals been filed and settled?

It will be interesting to hear the details in time. Valve lift is a black and white measurement that every engine builder rechecks on any engine going to the Runoffs, but as anyone who has ever tried to measure up an intake manifold can attest, there is a lot of subjectivity involved. Just getting the same values repeatedly with one person measuring won't happen. Even the difference in ambient temps between WI and CA may be a factor.
Very interesting.

[smsazzy]

From what I heard second hand, 1 valve was over by 0.001. Sounds to me like two dial indicators didn't agree. Such a shame. As someone said before, probably made zero actual performance difference, but rules are rules. Black and white.

The manifolds, from what I understand are from two different "manufacturers". So it is t a case of one person doing it wrong.

I can only imagine how upset all involved are.

[veeracer98]

Sounds like an over zealous Tech inspector. .001 over could be measurement error.

[Daryl DeArman]

I feel for Terran. I've only met him once as I was done with FV before he started. Seemed like a really good "kid".

From what I understand the difference in valve lift came down to the dial indicator used by the engine builder and the dial indicator used by the tech folks disagreeing.

You have to draw a line in the sand and stick to it. This isn't Obama's tech shack. 2# under, .002" over, whatever, out of spec is out of spec.

[fv9]

I feel for Terran. I've only met him once as I was done with FV before he started. Seemed like a really good "kid".

From what I understand the difference in valve lift came down to the dial indicator used by the engine builder and the dial indicator used by the tech folks disagreeing.

You have to draw a line in the sand and stick to it. This isn't Obama's tech shack. 2# under, .002" over, whatever, out of spec is out of spec.

I believe tech used a cheap Chinese Harbor Freight gauge that disagreed with the engine builder's gauge. They then used a nice $400 gauge that confirmed the Harbor Freight $.99 special. Based their decision on that.

[Matt King]

It seems like every year there is at least one big tech shed drama, but to wipe out the on-track podiums in two of SCCA's most popular classes may be unprecedented.

[sracing]

From what I heard second hand, 1 valve was over by 0.001. Sounds to me like two dial indicators didn't agree.

I was told by Lybarger some time ago that like deck height, intake valves were measured as an average of the 4 (also exhaust valves). So a .001 over on one would cancel out one that was .001 under. Other tech venues use a procedure similar.

Also it would be interesting to know IF that "2nd hand info is valid. I heard about 20 different stories out of the tech shed for a couple other DQ's.

[fv9]

I was told by Lybarger some time ago that like deck height, intake valves were measured as an average of the 4 (also exhaust valves). So a .001 over on one would cancel out one that was .001 under. Other tech venues use a procedure similar.

Also it would be interesting to know IF that "2nd hand info is valid. I heard about 20 different stories out of the tech shed for a couple other DQ's.

It's each individual valve, not an average. Also, not sure about the .001. Seems that is what I heard at the track. As for the other DQ's, it was indeed horizontal tube measurements.

[Diamond Level Motorsports]

Here is the final results.

http://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3...fruIEX7IdZ&s=1

[nhJohn]

So, they tech the top 3, and all get DQ'ed. Do the NEXT 3 get to go through tech inspection?

John

[smsazzy]

So, they tech the top 3, and all get DQ'ed. Do the NEXT 3 get to go through tech inspection?

John

When the winner is DQ'd the go to #2, then #3 and so on. So yes. Shields was the first to pass. They impound top 6 I believe.

[Dick R.]

Shouldn't the measuring tools be calibrated by certified calibration services to NIST traceable standards and recalibrated at appropriate intervals (like just before the Runoffs each year)?

[Steve Davis]

I think it would be MUCH easier and CHEAPER for all concerned if everyone just stayed away from the EDGES of these measurements. Trying to grab that extra 0.0002% of HP just isn't worth it.

Of course a potential source of the issue is WEAR in the valve lift situation. I can't think of any way on earth to accurately pin point the valve lift at zero lash at some undefined temperature after .. say 2 hours of run time. So.... best not to push that envelope.

I too would like to really understand and wish I could VIEW the actual measuring process that was used. I can see at least a couple thousandths of variance in almost any process. On the other hand, how many of us actually CHECK that measurement more than once a year .. much less 3 times per weekend. ??

[grapefarmeral]

If we had spec manifolds it wouldn't be an issue...just sayin'....

[Mark Filip]

If we had spec manifolds it wouldn't be an issue...just sayin'....

We do.... The specs are listed in the GCR

If we had a "spec" manifold as in 1 company that made them, they would still need to be checked to make sure they were not tampered with. Then no one would have a choice, just pay what ever price is set that's it.

[mblanc]

1)
Some of the manifold issues could come from the fact that a different person was doing the measuring. The way one uses a caliper on a thin tube manifold can make a difference of a few thousandths in the measurement. There is a good chance that Fred Clark had a heavier touch than the Laguna tech person. There is every possibility that the failed manifolds passed under Fred's RA inspections.

...... measuring tools be calibrated by certified calibration services to NIST traceable standards and recalibrated at appropriate intervals......?

Do such standards exist for a dial caliper ?

[Speed Sport Engineering]

I'm at the airport on my phone so I'll have to keep this short for now. Tech was a pain in the butt at this event. The biggest issue is there were inspectors who didn't know a thing about fv and more importantly, how to use said measuring tools. My understanding was the valve lift was off by a bit more then .001, but it was an honest mistake and very unfortunate. Terran did a great job and deserved to win.

Back on the tech.... as an example of how bad it was, tech had an issue with our car on Thursday. It was impounded for 3! Hours before we were even told what the problem was. We eventually had it overruled and all was right with the world, but it was a grave foreshadowing of what was to come.

I predicted the tech shed drama based on what I saw all week taking place in the barn. The inspectors were the most stubborn and clueless group we had ever run across. There was no reasoning with them. Some may say that's harsh, but I'm sure most would agree.

The manifold issue was a matter of the stubborn tech people interpeting a rule one way when the rest of the world views it differently.

[fv9]

I'm at the airport on my phone so I'll have to keep this short for now. Tech was a pain in the butt at this event. The biggest issue is there were inspectors who didn't know a thing about fv and more importantly, how to use said measuring tools. My understanding was the valve lift was off by a bit more then .001, but it was an honest mistake and very unfortunate. Terran did a great job and deserved to win.

Back on the tech.... as an example of how bad it was, tech had an issue with our car on Thursday. It was impounded for 3! Hours before we were even told what the problem was. We eventually had it overruled and all was right with the world, but it was a grave foreshadowing of what was to come.

I predicted the tech shed drama based on what I saw all week taking place in the barn. The inspectors were the most stubborn and clueless group we had ever run across. There was no reasoning with them. Some may say that's harsh, but I'm sure most would agree.

The manifold issue was a matter of the stubborn tech people interpeting a rule one way when the rest of the world views it differently.

San Francisco Region. Nothing less, nothing more. We deal with them regularly and the Region is a nightmare top to bottom.

[budawe]

While I agree with Michael about the impound confusion after qualifying, I have to disagree with the negative statements about the inspectors. The 3 scrutineers I worked with were very agreeable and tried their very best for a favorable outcome. Unlike some previous line inspectors, these guys were not only mechanical engineers, but regular formula car competitors and one has extensive vee and 1st experience including engine building. As always, measurements take place as the vehicle was raced and circumstances can change. The engineers might correct this assumption, but if in fact a manifold really failed measurement by just .001 it might have been thermally effected. It's quite challenging to write a rule that can be easily complied with and easy to confirm. It should be noted that the manifold language in the GCR was initially written by a manifold builder. Maybe the spec manifold would have been a better answer and it could still be if the class were to agree.

All of the tech details are kept confidential by tech and everything you read and hear is subject to challenge. Just in case anyone thinks I'm just holding the company line should know that I was the builder of the engine that crossed the finish line first. The look in Terran's face after the tech shed will be on my mind and in my heart for a long time. The lift was just one of the things we confirmed on Sat. prior to the race.

[racerdad2]

Just a thought. Would it be possible for the club to have National Level Certified Techs for such an important event ? With all the necessary go-no-go gauges & instruments ? In my limited experience, I've seen Techs that were extraordinarily competent & well versed and some, well, not so much.

[CCox]

As an engine builder myself it is very difficult to set these tolerances on a racing engine weather it be a FV engine or a GT-1 V8. Trying to keep these tolerances within the rules can be difficult because of the different components being made of various different metals (mag., cast iron, aluminum) all expand and contract at different rates as temps go up and down. If valve lift is over a thousandth or two when engine is warm it may be under when engine is cold plus the wear on the valve adjusting screw and the ends of the pushrods beating in play into this as well.


Chris Cox Owner of Noble Engines by Cox

[Steve Davis]

Actually, it's really NOT all that difficult to keep within the specified tolerances. What's DIFFICULT is to get as close as you want/need to (or think you need to) and still stay within spec under all conditions .

[Daryl DeArman]

I think it would be MUCH easier and CHEAPER for all concerned if everyone just stayed away from the EDGES of these measurements. Trying to grab that extra 0.0002% of HP just isn't worth it.

Of course a potential source of the issue is WEAR in the valve lift situation. I can't think of any way on earth to accurately pin point the valve lift at zero lash at some undefined temperature after .. say 2 hours of run time. So.... best not to push that envelope.

I too would like to really understand and wish I could VIEW the actual measuring process that was used. I can see at least a couple thousandths of variance in almost any process. On the other hand, how many of us actually CHECK that measurement more than once a year .. much less 3 times per weekend. ??

That's a decision each competitor can make for themselves. There is a reason there are minimums and maximums in the rule book. I don't blame anybody who tries to walk that line.

If they come up 2# light or .002" over on FV valve lift....I don't consider them "cheaters", I consider them someone that happened to have lost a gamble they were willing to take.

This isn't somebody with deck height .010" too shallow, a carb venturi too large, a manifold a couple of ounces too light.

I didn't build my own engines. I didn't race at the RunOffs and I checked my max valve lift multiple times through out a season because of wear, my desire to make sure I wasn't giving anything available to me up.. I had a number of pushrods and rocker arms to keep it as close to the maximum as I was comfortable with......of course I always measured them with my dial indicator, so a lot of good that might have done me.

The pushrod/rocker arm geometry in a FV engine can be so "less-than-desirable" that it is rather time consuming to keep things at the limit as parts wear.

[FVRacer21]

I was sitting at a business dinner when I struck up conversation with one of our sales reps. When he found out that I was racing he mentioned also that he used to race. We got talking about the SCCA and how unfair some of their rulings were, when I brought up the story of a guy who lost F Production title when his valves were found to be .006 oversize and the specs in the GCR went only 2 places 1.31 . Imagine my surprise when David Salls said he was that driver. Tech had originally disqualified him, later the Stewards of the Meet overturned the disqualification and then the Chief Steward protested the upholding of David’s protest. It went before the Court of Appeals and they upheld the disqualification but with the qualification that the Production Board put in a more precise measurement or give a tolerance for production variance. David had put stock valves in without measuring them - his mistake, but there was no intent to cheat as about 2 minutes with a file or sandpaper would have made them “legal”. But then the bigger question came up. How precise do you measure something and what does the rule state? The SOM thought there was no advantage, none of his competitors would have protested, so what went wrong? The end result? David walked away and I do not believe he ever came back. I would have applauded the SCCA for being consistent but around that time they found another discrepancy in a class and just fined the drivers but allowed the positions to stand. Maybe if the facts were posted and the drivers allowed to protest, and if they didn’t - that would be the end of it. They know amongst themselves who won - it should not be an official deciding this in the absence of driver input.
My feeling is that we have not heard the last of this. I have come back to racing and my experience with the New England region has been wonderful. From Registration to Tech to the Corner Workers and Officials it has been great. They have figured out we are not enemies but have a joint investment in making this work. Not having been there, I can’t comment until I get the whole story, but I can tell you what it looks like and it ain’t good.

Chris Z

[DanW]

Do such standards exist for a dial caliper ?

Yes. A dial caliper can be calibrated at mulitple points with calibration standards to ensure accuracy. They are widely used in manufacturing environments for statistical process control.

[mblanc]

Surprised at that. I always thought calipers were for eyeballing something , and you get out a micrometer if you want to measure something. Of course you have to learn the correct 'feel' of a mic to be accurate and repeatable.

[DanW]

http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=7449

Above is a forum post that gives some guidance, including text for a DOD cal procedure.

It doesn't matter if you are reading a mic or a caliper, measurement error can occur due to the person taking the measurement, same for repeatability.

[Stan Clayton]

If we had spec manifolds it wouldn't be an issue...just sayin'....

We do.... The specs are listed in the GCR

If we had a "spec" manifold as in 1 company that made them, they would still need to be checked to make sure they were not tampered with. Then no one would have a choice, just pay what ever price is set that's it.

No we do NOT...and you know it. That said, I agree that a spec manifold is not the answer. What the class NEEDS is a $20 restrictor like that used in the "other" ACVW class. Then competitors could run whatever darned manifold they wish without concern of all the rampant thousand-dollar massaging of them that goes on.

I guess that's too simple, though.

[Bruce]

The manifolds already has a restrictor. It's where the carb mounts to the intake, adding another variable, that can expand or contrast, such as a restrictor plate, does not solve anything. It could lower horse power, not something the lowest power, open wheel class needs, in a time of mixed class racing.
There is no simple answer that everyone will agree on, I say we live with what we have, and not complicate the situation any further.

[budawe]

What we have to remember is that our parts were basically made 50 years ago. Unlike a new Honda fit used in FF, that was made with current technology, engine blue printers are getting very small gains out of those engines. The same can't be said of our engines.

While the restrictor has some attraction, it really just represents another opportunity for engine builders. 70% of NASCAR engine budgets are committed to restrictor plate engines.

Introducing a constant, which doesn't carry an opportunity for builders, makes real sense. I understand that builders will work on optimizing a spec manifold, but as long as we can't touch the internal areas, it will be cost effective option for our competitors.

[problemchild]

Stan, the under-carb restrictor plate is over-rated as an equalizer. It just knocks the same HP off every engine, but better flowing carbs and intake manifolds will always make more hp. At some point, if the restrictor was small enough, it would act as you suggest, but FV needs more than 45 hp, IMO.





What is wearing out to affect lift in a half hour race? I have been checking and setting FV lift for decades, and rarely see several thou change over the length of a rebuild run. Considering that the values are averaged, one or more values must have been significantly high. Since Brian was personally involved in the engine, he is not bound by any confidentiality associated with his SCCA status. Much like the small CCs of several years ago, at some point an insignificant, seemingly trivial oversight does become advantageous. I would expect most top FV engines to be .005" underlift on average, so being .003-5" overlift on average is not insignificant. It is too bad we cannot know what really went on.

[Stan Clayton]

What we have to remember is that our parts were basically made 50 years ago. Unlike a new Honda fit used in FF, that was made with current technology, engine blue printers are getting very small gains out of those engines. The same can't be said of our engines.

While the restrictor has some attraction, it really just represents another opportunity for engine builders. 70% of NASCAR engine budgets are committed to restrictor plate engines.

Introducing a constant, which doesn't carry an opportunity for builders, makes real sense. I understand that builders will work on optimizing a spec manifold, but as long as we can't touch the internal areas, it will be cost effective option for our competitors.

All of that may be true, Bruce, but for as long as I have raced in SCCA...and no doubt long before that...the manifold has been problematical, so why not eliminate it as an area of controversy? Besides, as you note, since "we can't touch the internal areas" a restrictor should not result in a run-up in costs.

The entire purpose of the current manifold rules is to cap the power of the engines. Why insist on a thousand-dollar part when a $20 will do as good a job for a small fraction of the cost?

Stan, the under-carb restrictor plate is over-rated as an equalizer. It just knocks the same HP off every engine, but better flowing carbs and intake manifolds will always make more hp. At some point, if the restrictor was small enough, it would act as you suggest, but FV needs more than 45 hp, IMO.

Oh baloney, this is pure "concern trolling". The restrictor used in FST knocks only about 2 hp off the engines at max RPM (and nothing below that). Would FV racing be any less fun and exciting at 60 hp versus 62 hp?

Besides, restrictors don't "knocks the same HP off every engine". They arbitrarily limit maximum airflow, so every engine is capped at the same maximum theoretical hp. If a particular engine is not fully prepped it won't reach that number, of course, but your accusation is simply not correct.

So let me ask you, why do you favor a $1000 solution over an equally effective $20 solution to the same problem?

[problemchild]

Oh baloney, this is pure "concern trolling". The restrictor used in FST knocks only about 2 hp off the engines at max RPM (and nothing below that). Would FV racing be any less fun and exciting at 60 hp versus 62 hp?

Besides, restrictors don't "knocks the same HP off every engine". They arbitrarily limit maximum airflow, so every engine is capped at the same maximum theoretical hp. If a particular engine is not fully prepped it won't reach that number, of course, but your accusation is simply not correct.

So let me ask you, why do you favor a $1000 solution over an equally effective $20 solution to the same problem?

I am trying to share experience from dyno-testing FST engines. Ask the Australians what they think of under carb restrictors on ACVWs. I would be in favor if they did anything worth doing. Go ahead Stan, keep spewing your uninformed garbage!

[Stan Clayton]

I am trying to share experience from dyno-testing FST engines. Ask the Australians what they think of under carb restrictors on ACVWs. I would be in favor if they did anything worth doing. Go ahead Stan, keep spewing your uninformed garbage!

Jim and Bill disagree with you...try a different restrictor.

[problemchild]

Jim and Bill disagree with you...try a different restrictor.

I would hope that the opinion of an independent engine builder whose engines won 5 consecutive FST championships (with the lowest budget drivers in the Series) would have some credibility relative to the vendors and promoters of the class and Series. We discovered early on, after being tipped off by an Aussie builder, that the under carb restricter plate was not all that it was meant to be. Ironically, the cheapest manifold on the market was the best. The under carb restrictor plate is a great concept however and probably would work as promised if at 20mm or so.

This really is just a smokescreen that has nothing to do with intake manifolds deemed legal by some people but not by the tech people at the 2014 Runoffs. Were they interpretating the rules differently, measuring differently, or what was the problem?

[Steve Davis]

I also wonder if Roger or Andrew had 'new' manifolds that were not run in previous Runoffs. Rick's came out of the same shop as Roger's I'm pretty sure. What about Andrew's - who "made" his? I guess MV would be the only one that got 'thoroughly' scrutinized in recent years, but I really do wonder if either of Roger or Andrew were running manifolds that were "new" ?

Either way, even though I'm 'confident' that mine meets spec, I haven't really MEASURED IT myself. I think I'll add that to my TO DO list .... and maybe check my valve lift again too .

[Bruce Livermore]

There seems to be confusion as to what is averaged and what is not on FV engine measurements.

Per the GCR (Appendix G), valve lift is not averaged and is measured to .001" and since it's listed as a maximum, allows no tolerance. This is not countered in the FV rules where the valve lift limits are stated as .XXX +.000 inches. Thus, .001" over on a single valve would be illegal. That's the rules as they read today.

Given operator and measurement variability, the only safe solution is to back off the lift a bit just as you would stay clear of minimum weight or any of the other dimensional limit since most are also "no tolerance" limits.

One can certainly argue that .001" on a single valve is not an advantage, but then where do you draw the line? Are the rules just to be judgement calls by that year's head tech inspector?

Re: restrictor plates. They would not be desirable on an already restrictive manifold in a class that has to run with faster cars most of the time.

Bruce

[Bill Johnson 42]

I have 4 manifolds sitting in my office right now. Looking at them I'm embarrassed how money I have invested in such crap parts. Runoffs last year I took my best manifold to Fred Clark in tech and had him measure it before I bolted it on my car to make 100% sure it was legal. I had measured it myself and it was very close - it's easy to see how different people can come to different conclusions.

I don't get how a so-called budget class allows a single part to cost so much and make such a performance difference. For what these things cost I'd just as soon see an open intake rule, at least out of that we'd get a more HP.

Personally I'd like to see both a spec intake and a restrictor used together. Done right we could get a few more HP out of it and it would take one ridiculous part out of the loop and would be available to everyone.

[smsazzy]

Personally I'd like to see both a spec intake and a restrictor used together. Done right we could get a few more HP out of it and it would take one ridiculous part out of the loop and would be available to everyone.

I absolutely, 100% agree.

A restrictor with current manifold is a bad idea.

However, what we need is a slightly better flowing spec manifold that costs a couple hundred bucks or so, and a spec restrictor plate for $20, that chokes that flow down to be about the same as a top manifold today.

The result would be, the serious competitor has to spend a couple hundred bucks for a runoffs quality intake, but the regional guy who doesn't want to is not required to. They're probably only 1 or so additional HP down from that top guy than they were before. However, the spec manifold becomes the part to have.

Win-Win solution. Eliminates $1000+ manifolds, increases HP slightly