FV at Laguna Runoffs ??

[Daryl DeArman]

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.

The 45HP hyperbole wasn't lost on me. I get your point.

A restrictor would have to be small enough so that what is both downstream and upstream of said restrictor does not have much influence on the end result. When the restrictor isn't sized as such, then what is up and down stream of said restrictor influences how well that restrictor flows.

Just like a wing. That element isn't always going to produce x amount of downforce at a given speed and angle of attack. What the air is doing in front of and behind that wing will influence the flow and efficiency of that wing.

As was stated above valve lift is not averaged, unlike deck height and manifold measurements.

If you set the max lift at MAX and go run it for 40 minutes at race speed (say 5-10% of it TBO) you will have wear affect that reading by maybe by .0005", maybe by .001"? I don't know exactly, but it won't be the same. The issue is that the cam nose, the pushrod ends, and both ends of the rocker, the tip of the valve stem, the valve seat and the valve are all some amount different. When you now set the valve lash at ZERO, the geometry is some amount different than it was before the wear and you will now end up with a different lift than you had before.

How close you want to cut it is up to you. I wouldn't be giving up .002-.003 thousandths on valve lift either. Heck, I don't want to give up 10# at the scales as a safety margin. But that's my choice. As it is to all those building these engines as to how close they and their customers want to push it. I don't fault any of them.

[Terry Abbott]

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?

Stan i personally dont want to send all my engines back to the builder to have RESTRICTOR performance built into them ...............Great for the builders but not so much for the end user and that WOULD happen

We are ALL up to speed on the current manifold spec's.

all WE need is for SCCA to let us know what happened and how the tech procedure was done

[problemchild]

How close you want to cut it is up to you. I wouldn't be giving up .002-.003 thousandths on valve lift either. Heck, I don't want to give up 10# at the scales as a safety margin. But that's my choice. As it is to all those building these engines as to how close they and their customers want to push it. I don't fault any of them.

I think we're on the same page Daryl.

IMO, if you are setting your valve lash within .002", and you end up excluded, that is bad judgement and not bad luck. You cannot say that you need to get the last .002" and then say that being .002" over lift is insignificant. My guess is that if one valve was over lift by less than .005, it would have been ignored, and I have no problem with that.

[Stan Clayton]

Stan i personally dont want to send all my engines back to the builder to have RESTRICTOR performance built into them ...............Great for the builders but not so much for the end user and that WOULD happen

I hate to be the one to break the bad news to you, Terry, but you already have a "performance restrictor"...it's called the manifold. In the final analysis it's just that you're using a $1000 restrictor in place of an equally effective $20 one. IMO you should be up in arms about that, NOT excusing it.

Oh, and you are already paying your engine builder to optimize to that restrictor, so nothing changes.

We are ALL up to speed on the current manifold spec's.

Evidently not, since 2 of the 3 podium finishers were DQ'd for out-of-spec manifolds.

all WE need is for SCCA to let us know what happened and how the tech procedure was done

What happened? It's all over this and other threads...two of the three podium finishers were DQ'd for out-of-spec manifolds. (Hint: they were too big.) As to the tech procedure, it was done in accordance with the GCR or we would have had protests and appeals out the wazoo.

[smsazzy]

So why not implement 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.

Plus, the part is solid, not foil thin and prone to break. A manifold that lasts nearly forever, and doesn't require updating.

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

[fv9]

all WE need is for SCCA to let us know what happened and how the tech procedure was done

I was watching, as were others who can post as well. It appeared they were using a hand held caliper and taking four measurements per location (couldnt tell how many locations) and averaging. My concern is that the caliper was handheld and God only knows if the inspector was measuring at a true 90 degree angle. Also, what about clear coat on the manifolds? Was he cracking through it or not? Loads of questions on how he took the measurements precisely.

[Terry Abbott]

I was watching, as were others who can post as well. It appeared they were using a hand held caliper and taking four measurements per location (couldnt tell how many locations) and averaging. My concern is that the caliper was handheld and God only knows if the inspector was measuring at a true 90 degree angle. Also, what about clear coat on the manifolds? Was he cracking through it or not? Loads of questions on how he took the measurements precisely.

That's my point ......we all know it was big !

[B Farnham]

So why not implement 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.

Plus, the part is solid, not foil thin and prone to break. A manifold that lasts nearly forever, and doesn't require updating.

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

This would be very beneficial for the class and would solve a lot of head aches and unnecessary spending. I tried looking and I didn't see any after market single port manifold at this time. We all dislike being the slowest class, if you restrict the spec manifold for a few years (gives everyone a chance get one) and then open it up, no one would be upset with speeding FV up

[eospeed]

This would be very beneficial for the class and would solve a lot of head aches and unnecessary spending. I tried looking and I didn't see any after market single port manifold at this time. We all dislike being the slowest class, if you restrict the spec manifold for a few years (gives everyone a chance get one) and then open it up, no one would be upset with speeding FV up

Years ago I tried to get a spec intake for FV but it was shot down.


http://formulavee.org/interchange/vi...it=spec+intake

[Rick Kean]

... Also, what about clear coat on the manifolds? Was he cracking through it or not? ...

Average clear coat minimum build thickness is ~4times greater than a phosphate chemical coating ala Kephos:

0.0022"
vs
0.0006"

Surely this manifold game shuns a painted topcoat(?)

[smsazzy]

Yes Eric, we are talking about the same effort.

I would propose (if it were up to me) the same spec manifold the Aussie's used, or have something made for us. Simply make the manifold much bigger, and choke it with a restrictor. I do like the idea of removing or enlarging the restrictor in 3-5 years, after everyone gets a chance to make the move to the new one, but that wouldn't be a requirement to make this work.

The manifold could be made of much thicker and stronger materials, which makes it last forever. The Aussie one have hose section in the horizontal tubes, allowing it to easily fit the width of any engine. No more issues trying to get the manifold to seal.

Hard to think of a downside except that you have scrap metal that you bought for $1000-1500. However, that should be offset by the fact that when the next revolution comes along in 3 years, you don't have to spend $1500 then.

[B Farnham]

Yes Eric, we are talking about the same effort.

I would propose (if it were up to me) the same spec manifold the Aussie's used, or have something made for us. Simply make the manifold much bigger, and choke it with a restrictor. I do like the idea of removing or enlarging the restrictor in 3-5 years, after everyone gets a chance to make the move to the new one, but that wouldn't be a requirement to make this work.

The manifold could be made of much thicker and stronger materials, which makes it last forever. The Aussie one have hose section in the horizontal tubes, allowing it to easily fit the width of any engine. No more issues trying to get the manifold to seal.

Hard to think of a downside except that you have scrap metal that you bought for $1000-1500. However, that should be offset by the fact that when the next revolution comes along in 3 years, you don't have to spend $1500 then.

I think this would work out very well, 1 manifold manufacturer and no modifying the manifold. The big thing would be getting A prototype made and tested

[Tiago Santos]

As before, the few guys that sell $1000-1500 bits of tubing will advise their customers of how terrible of an idea a spec manifold is. Besides, spec is just another word for communism.

I'll even renew my SCCA membership just to vote for a spec manifold if it comes to that, but I'm not holding my breath.

Hey, here's a crazy idea sure to make someone's blood boil - cheap, big spec manifolds good for a couple HP more than the best current manifolds, and cheap spec hard/DOT tires to slow the cars down to current laptimes. Madness!

[smsazzy]

Now that is just crazy talk. There is no place for that here. :-)

[Matt King]

Don't forget disc brakes! Or an extra 25 pounds of minimum weight.

[Stan Clayton]

Don't forget disc brakes! Or an extra 25 pounds of minimum weight.

And a 1600 cc engine? Bruce wants to go faster...

[Dave Woodmancy]

Yes Eric, we are talking about the same effort.

I would propose (if it were up to me) the same spec manifold the Aussie's used, or have something made for us. Simply make the manifold much bigger, and choke it with a restrictor. I do like the idea of removing or enlarging the restrictor in 3-5 years, after everyone gets a chance to make the move to the new one, but that wouldn't be a requirement to make this work.

The manifold could be made of much thicker and stronger materials, which makes it last forever. The Aussie one have hose section in the horizontal tubes, allowing it to easily fit the width of any engine. No more issues trying to get the manifold to seal.

Hard to think of a downside except that you have scrap metal that you bought for $1000-1500. However, that should be offset by the fact that when the next revolution comes along in 3 years, you don't have to spend $1500 then.

Keep in mind I currently have no dog in this fight, and I hesitate to take this further off topic, but since its going there....

What would the perceived cons be to running a controlled spec manifold, besides protecting the investment of those that already have the best money can buy (and I'm not suggesting that's not important) There will be some additional cost to those who have already invested in "monster" manifolds, but beyond that, what else?

Is it just as simple as the perceived benefit to those that don't have one of the best of the current crop doesn't outweigh the new additional cost to those that do have them? Or, is there more to it...

A decade ago, I had big $$ wrapped up into two "top shelf" manifolds that by todays standards I'm led to believe would be paperweights if you were trying to run at the front..

[smsazzy]

That's why I don't buy the "protecting your investment" argument. If you protected your investment, even 5 years ago, you have had to update your manifold since then. 10 years ago, you have since spent another $1000+. At the least you've had the thing repaired.

[Bruce]

Stan,

I'm glad you think you have a crystal ball and are allowed to simply assume, but where have I ever advocated for a 1600 cc motor of any specification? By the way you attributed a quote, not mine, to me. Sorry, but I can not or do not take credit for someone's else comments. I suggest you be more careful.

Bruce, not Brian, aka budawe.

[Stan Clayton]

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.

Stan,

I'm glad you think you have a crystal ball and are allowed to simply assume, but where have I ever advocated for a 1600 cc motor of any specification? By the way you attributed a quote, not mine, to me. Sorry, but I can not or do not take credit for someone's else comments. I suggest you be more careful.

Bruce, not Brian, aka budawe.

I didn't quote anybody, Bruce, much less Brian, and I certainly never claimed you (or anybody else) is advocating a 1600cc engine. What I DID DO with my comment was to take a riff on Matt's dig/snark/plug-for disc brakes.

That said, you made clear in an earlier post that you don't want to go slower, which I highlight above. This may come as a surprise to you, but I agree with that sentiment. In fact, I think FV should be sped up so it is more compatible with the classes it typically has to share the track with.

[Bruce]

I suggest you reread your post, #113.

[Stan Clayton]

I suggest you reread your post, #113.

LOL, don't be pedantic, Bruce...we were talking about whether I quoted you or accused you of supporting the 1600cc engine. My mistyping notwithstanding, I did neither.

[Daryl DeArman]

What would the perceived cons be to running a controlled spec manifold, besides protecting the investment of those that already have the best money can buy (and I'm not suggesting that's not important) There will be some additional cost to those who have already invested in "monster" manifolds, but beyond that, what else?

I like the concept at face value. However, I would have a few concerns:


(1) Ability to accurately tech to ensure it hasn't been tampered with.

(2) Manufacturing tolerances of a low cost piece and parts-bin blue-printing.

(3) When the intake manifold no longer becomes the restrictor you will have $1500 carbs and $3000 heads...

We must first decide what problem we are trying to solve.

[Bruce]

Nothing I stated was pedantic, that is insulting. You made an error, why you do not accept that fact and simply take responsibility? I was not the person that brought up my name.

[Bill Bonow]

OK, This thread is about FV at the 2014 Runoffs. It has drifted quite a ways and is quickly heading towards lock up.

If you wish to talk about FV at the Runoffs, post away.

[butch deer]

FV race was one of the best at the runoffs(as it usually is). I enjoyed every second of it. The fight in the tech shed and the inconsistency of the SCCA in the way it has handled penalties and fines is not nearly so much fun.

[Matt King]

The fight in the tech shed and the inconsistency of the SCCA in the way it has handled penalties and fines is not nearly so much fun.

SCCA could take a lesson from NASCAR: the car the fans see take the checkered flag is ALWAYS the winner of the race, regardless of what transpires in tech. They never change the results after the fact. That's what fines and suspensions are for.

[Stan Clayton]

OK, This thread is about FV at the 2014 Runoffs. It has drifted quite a ways and is quickly heading towards lock up.

If you wish to talk about FV at the Runoffs, post away.

I'm gonna go waaaaaaayyy out one a limb here, Bill, and ask you not to lock up this thread. Why? Because Brian's posts notwithstanding, we ARE talking about the Laguna results...at least indirectly.

How so? Simple...I think the problem resides with WHAT they measure, rather than how they measure it. IOW, I think hey should measure a restrictor itself rather than a proxy for it, such as the intake manifold.

[smsazzy]

You don't end up with $1500 carbs and $3000 heads when they both already flow more than the restrictor will. No different than we have now except the $20 restrictor is a $1200 manifold.

[Garry Sharp]

This thread is confirmation that FV as a class is doomed. It is the laughingstock of the of the ACVW class worldwide. The ass-backward, argumentative, unconstructive, dysfunctional, discussions on almost ALL the posts here are the exact OPPOSITE of what it would take for a class with the challenges facing SCCA FV to survive.

[smsazzy]

Garry,
Enlighten us on what it would take.

[B Farnham]

This thread is confirmation that FV as a class is doomed. It is the laughingstock of the of the ACVW class worldwide. The ass-backward, argumentative, unconstructive, dysfunctional, discussions on almost ALL the posts here are the exact OPPOSITE of what it would take for a class with the challenges facing SCCA FV to survive.

Since when is FV in danger? FV participation numbers have risen over the last few years. I'll just share a little statistic 10 FVs racing for every FST racing and from what I've seen FST numbers have leveled off. FV is the future not FST.

A spec manifold would only help the class, when you try to explain why a little piece of tubing (current FV manifold) costs so much to an outsider they laugh at you. Spec manifolds and spec harder tires would do wonders for saving costs and growing the class. But IMO no major change will ever come, we're all just dreaming

[Garry Sharp]

A spec manifold would only help the class, when you try to explain why a little piece of tubing (current FV manifold) costs so much to an outsider they laugh at you. Spec manifolds and spec harder tires would do wonders for saving costs and growing the class. But IMO no major change will ever come, we're all just dreaming [/QUOTE]

This quote is just what I was trying to point out. Good ideas, but then, "we're all just dreaming." Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the disagreement and arguing is what has kept the thing going for so long. It just seems so painful for everybody.

[Daryl DeArman]

You don't end up with $1500 carbs and $3000 heads when they both already flow more than the restrictor will. No different than we have now except the $20 restrictor is a $1200 manifold.

Okay. I won't continue to debate that topic here on this thread. If you want to debate the validity of a restrictor or spec manifold, maybe start another thread as to not get this one locked.

[B Farnham]

If you step back and look at the big picture you'll see that all the bickering and lack of change that comes from it is due to the fact that FV is the third largest national class. Its the most successful formula car class so changing a proven product is never an easy task. We all just want to make the class even better than it already is

[grapefarmeral]

The subject and source of great verbal hostilities was the spec manifold, shortly after the monster manifolds appeared... The monster manifolds are an expensive net gain part. They offer more HP until every one has one, then it's back to a more expensive square one. During this time someone bought a spec manifold from Australia or New Zealand and had some proposals on the cost of duplicating or producing a spec manifold.. If memory serves me right the cost was around $200.

Spec manifolds make sense...but wait, this is Formula Vee , that would be too easy..

[problemchild]

Okay. I won't continue to debate that topic here on this thread. If you want to debate the validity of a restrictor or spec manifold, maybe start another thread as to not get this one locked.

Somehow, one would think that if there was a $20 magic solution to equalize all engines in a race class, it would be in use today. Perhaps FV can revolutionize the motorsport industry.

Perhaps cheap restrictors on each head port could be developed to achieve some form of equalization, but you're looking at a significant development process. It is obvious that an undercarb plate will not work in this case unless you want to reduce hp by a very large margin. That will become apparent immediately in testing.

For those that do not understand why, the current generation of manifolds illustrate how restricting a portion of the induction system to a specific size does not equalize anything. Every manifold built since the 60s has had dimensions to limit certain areas to the same specific sizes, yet gooseneck portions significantly increase the flow and power produced. If limiting a portion of the intake to a certain spec equalized those intakes, then every manifold from about 1965 would produce the same flow and hp.

The reason that spec manifolds were not embraced by the community is that the concept was not developed to a point that a majority would buy into it. Instead of wasting time promoting $20 magic solutions, develop a concept and plan that can be embraced by the FV community, none of whom like the current product, but are afraid of an undeveloped alternative and the associated transition period.

[Steve Davis]

Actually, the predicted cost of the Spec Man was more like $450-$500. We never got far enough along to get beyond "good guesses" from the mfr's we contacted, before it was shot down by letters to the CRB - seemingly an organized thrust from a relatively small group - but it was successful.

[grapefarmeral]

Thanks Steven

[Rolling Stone]

This thread is confirmation that FV as a class is doomed. It is the laughingstock of the of the ACVW class worldwide. The ass-backward, argumentative, unconstructive, dysfunctional, discussions on almost ALL the posts here are the exact OPPOSITE of what it would take for a class with the challenges facing SCCA FV to survive.

Fvs and F1200s are NOT real racecars anyway and we all know it,its just all we can afford to do..Formula Ford(F1600) and up are REAL racecars.40-50 yr old engines,beetle (tank) front-end axle etc,etc.Its fun,great cameraderie(In Ontario anyway )but its a dinasour in N.America,way behind G.B. Australia etc if it ever changes here it will take forever!!Ok im off into the garage now to work on my1984 180cc Yamaha scooter.