Cost cutting part supply... Your action requested

[Eric Little]

Formula F is experiencing a resurgence. Getting more cars to the track improves the product for the racers and increases entries for the SCCA and its various clubs. In order to continue the re-growth of Formula F, racers need access to quality parts, at affordable costs, and that do not change the balance of competition. Currently Formula F has many restrictions with regard to authorized parts for Kent and Cortina powered cars. These same parts can be built by others parties that have shown an interest in producing parts for this market segment. The result of more competition among parts suppliers is reduced costs to racers making it possible for them to race rather than forego events in order to afford the maintenance costs or avoiding racing all together as too expensive.

Please help the Formula F community and the racing community in general by informing the SCCA of your desire to purchase affordable, readily available parts from any supplier, including SCCA sponsor Summit Racing, so long as they meet the performance characteristics that are acceptable within the class. Please inform the SCCA that you would like to have approved pistons, rings, and wrist pins from JE Pistons for which, JE has provided engineered drawings and samples demonstrating that they are equivalent to the currently approved CP piston. JE is planning to provide a full set of four pistons with necessary rings, and wrist pins, for under $500 comparing very favorably to the cost of the currently authorized piston, rings, and wrist pins at over $885. In addition, please inform the SCCA that you are interested in an alternative valve manufactured by Manley and of the same dimensions as that listed in section 12.f of the Formula Continental/F preparation rules. Once again, the Manley valves will represent significant savings at approximately $175 for a complete set of intake and exhaust valves compared to $250 for the currently authorized valves.
Between the two items, a given rebuild will save the racer approximately $500 which is most if not all of the entry fee for an SCCA race weekend. This is a significant cost reduction that deserves your support.
As racers we know that competition is good. Not only on the track, but in providing parts at better prices with no competitive difference. Reduction in operating costs means more income to spend on actual races benefitting both the racer and the SCCA alike.
Your help will ensure that racers have a readily available supply, from any distributor, at competitive prices, while ensuring that the balance of competition is unchanged and helping to keep cars on the track rather than in the garage.

Here is what I am asking you to do:
E-mail directly to the Competition Review Board. Doing so is simple. Just follow these steps:

1. Go to https://www.crbscca.com/
2. Enter your name, email, phone number, and member number within the form
3. Select “Club Racing Board” from the “send letter to” drop-down
4. Select “Formul/Sports Racing” from the “Category” drop-down
5. Select “FF” from the “Class” drop-down
6. In the Title box type, “New FF parts approval requested”
7. Copy and paste the message below into the request field:

Dear CRB,

I am an SCCA member and wish to express my support for an alternative piston, rings, and wrist pin as well as valves for Formula F. It is my understanding that JE has presented a piston, ring, and wrist pin package that is equivalent to the current piston and therefore of no competitive advantage. I also understand that Manley has available for purchase valves with dimensions consistent with current GCR regulations which would represent no competitive advantage. Acceptance of these alternative parts is in the best interest of SCCA members and should be approved.

Thank you,
Your Name and Member number

1. Click submit Request at the bottom of the page
2. Please PM me or respond to this thread that you have sent your letter. I have been working with a number of entities, including JE pistons and the SCCA. Knowing that you have submitted your request will help me track this through the process.

Thank you for helping Formula F!

Eric Little

[Daryl DeArman]

Rot-Roh. Wait just a minute, I need to grab some (hey how come it won't accept my popcorn emoji?)

[Eric Little]

I have received some feedback privately on this that could use clarification.

The pistons from JE have been submitted to the SCCA. It is my understanding that they came with an engineered drawing showing limits to the same dimensions (size, weight, pin location, rings, etc.).

The Manley valves are available from Manley with the same dimensions as the currently available valves.

Thus, there is no competitive advantage from a performance standpoint.

With regard to the pistons, it is my understanding that the SCCA does not believe there is a demand for them. While I do not agree that the viability of sales of a product is the domain of the SCCA, if they want to know if there is demand, we can show them by submitting your request as highlighted above.

Nowhere in this request is anyone asking for a performance enhancement. The entire expectation is parts with identical performance available through a large number of retailers for better cost so that racing is made more affordable.

Hope that helps in your decision to support this effort.

Thanks
Eric Little

[Joefisherff]

Done, Thanks Eric for leading the charge.

[Craig71188]

#28152 Response sent.

I also added a note stating that after 40 years of membership, this may be my last request.

IMHO, SCCA is so lost and so clueless as to how to control costs that it may be time to let my membership lapse and just continue to race elsewhere.

[tstrong]

We need to be extremely cautious as to what we ask for. Although nobody will argue that a set of identical parts made by multiple manufacturers can lead to price competition and help ease supply chain challenges. That said verifying part identically is a a very challenging task and one that will not be achievable in practice utilizing the existing SCCA (or other common sanctioning body) infrastructure and rules. In my aerospace/ aviation day job determining identically (and/or suitability) of alternate (counterfeit) parts is a major industry and regulatory issue and the time and cost involved with such efforts is significant. It is so much more than checking a few dimensions and weights and is why so many A/C components are single source even in an environment where detailed engineering, configuration control, inspection and part approval are the norm. To try to bring anything close to this level of scrutiny our club racing environment is completely impractical. If we say OK but we don’t need identically we just need to ensure the parts have equal performance capability we just introduce even another subjective variable to the mix (who/how determines what provides a performance advantage and what does not). Again there are so many more variables than dimensions and weight. To understand how each of those variable potentially effect performance and then control each of them with multiple suppliers (who have proven not to have well defined and enforced configuration control) is a task that I can ensure you will not happen in the club racing environment we live in.

Don’t get me wrong even in the current environment the rules and enforcement are far from perfect, but having basically single suppliers for each component significantly improves the chances that the parts you are using in your engine are the same as the next guys and don’t provide and unfair advantage. If we open up to multiple sources we will absolutely end up chasing the “better” part whether the difference is meaningful or not. We currently have a set of parts that are available, reliable, and not cost prohibitive for those that still chose to run the Ford engine and I struggle to see the benefit in introducing a whole bunch of new variables and uncertainty in the parts supply change. Please chime in, but I have been doing this for quite some time and don’t know too many folks who are either going to jump back into the game, or race a whole bunch of more events because they save $500 in parts cost on there once every 2-3 year engine rebuild. Note just as one example I have been running 50+ hrs between rebuilds (bottom end) and have used the same set of pistons for the last 3 rebuild cycles with no issues (so thats 150 hrs and 7+ years and still going). Is the difference in price quoted above (even if it stays true) really significant?

If we really want to spend time and energy on the Kent engine rule I would suggest efforts to close loopholes and vague areas to ensure “standardization” of the engines and not look for ways to provide additional “options” and areas to develop to gain performance advantages. My opinion on the subject. YMMV.

Also, just so nobody gets all twisted up I fully confess I am not currently an SCCA member and have chosen to do my FF racing with several of the vintage clubs but still have a vested interest in the SCCA rules as the inevitably trickle down into the other organizations.
Todd

[Eric Little]

Thanks Todd for the observations. A few thoughts to consider.

If we really cannot measure the differences that you state will make an appreciable difference, then our ability to tech any car whether all single source parts or not is infeasible. I do not see this as a realistic problem. The SCCA recently approved the oversized piston for the Honda. There was some speculation that this would be a performance advantage yet I have not seen a number of Honda drivers run out for new pistons to "chase" the performance advantage. If a physically larger piston with more displacement is not a performance advantage, then I am not sure what minute variation in measurement is going to produce the significant performance advantage you are concerned with. Even our rules have a dimension and a range to account for imprecision in measurement and machining.

At some point, we have to trust that a manufacturer will continue to produce to a spec that was submitted for approval. If we cannot, then there is nothing to stop even a single part supplier from building a part with the minute immeasurable differences that you theorize will present a significant performance advantage. The manufacturers have an incentive to continue building parts for the racers. Violating their agreement with the SCCA to produce to a spec is not in their best interest and they will employ quality control to accomplish this. If they cannot, then whether a single supplier or multiple suppliers, we are doomed.

Physics will not know whose name is on the piston. We will need to trust that the SCCA will appropriately review the performance characteristics of alternative parts. While many speculated that the introduction of the Honda was a competitive advantage making the Kent obsolete, recent views seem to suggest from many that this is not the case. If the SCCA can make two completely different motors equally competitive, I can trust that they will appropriately measure the alternative piston to ensure it is an equal part.

Finally, not all SCCA rules trickle to the vintage ranks. I generally do not see the vintage ranks allowing a brand new Mygale with a Honda motor. These organizations can feel free to refer to a historical version of the SCCA GCR or to note exceptions to the GCR in their own rules or to develop their own rules in their entirety.

In the meantime, competition among parts providers will be an advantage to the racers. Whether you rebuild a motor every weekend or every seven years (for the record, I have one full rebuild and one top end due to a ring failure) in the five years I have been racing. I have purchased one set of pistons. Yet I would like the option for a lower cost alternative in the coming years when I do have a need for pistons.

Eric Little

[bob darcey]

In the category of "be careful what you wish for", I wonder how many manufacturers can share the not-so-massive Formula F Kent replacement piston market before the unit price goes through the ceiling and/or the manufacturers decide it's just not worth it. A minor point: Pegasus sells CP pistons, rings and wrist pins for $834; the valve sets are $251, so the stated delta is approximately $400, not $500.

I'd rather support the people and businesses who got us this far. BTW, you don't know anyone cheaper than me.

[Daryl DeArman]

I'd rather support the people and businesses who got us this far.

True. Certainly your choice.

However, not sure how relevant that is to the argument here.

CP doesn't sell that many sets of these SCCA legal pistons. If the JE piston also becomes legal how much does CP's annual revenue fall? .001%? Maybe the people who got us this far aren't the manufacturers, but rather the engine builders and parts houses.

If your loyalty/concern is for Ivey and/or Pegasus I'm fairly certain they'll sell / build what their clients need and won't pack up shop and go away because another brand piston and/or valve was approved.

My concern would be removal of any incentive for somebody like Ivey to go through the process and put in the work required to get the next part manufactured / approved. I imagine somebody like Ivey and Picks must both have good relationships with these respective manufacturers to even convince them to consider making such limited market parts.

I am in need of a part for a motorcycle that is on backorder. Has been for months. The manufacturer will not make another batch of my needed part until they have a demand for 12 units. They said that could take more than a year. I'm tempted to just buy 12, but it would take years for me to sell the other 11.

Y'all should be happy you have another manufacturer willing to make such small runs of bits and pieces to support your hobby. I wouldn't be so quick to chase one away.

[Rick Kirchner]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't performance pistons essentially all custom made? I had a set of Venolias made for my AC FSV 25 years ago, and a replacement item several years after that, at about the same price point as these (adjusted). As I understand it, there are several sizes of "blanks" - the basic forgings - and all the manufacturer does is apply the appropriate CNC program to the blank.

Yeah, someone has to do the design and run a couple of parts for verification, but modern tech makes this not a big deal. The biggest issue is the wait if they aren't in stock somewhere.

With regards to J&E, I had those in my FC from 2003 to 2017. Probably put 70 events on them. So here's a funny story (and will the persons on the FSRB who made the decisions on these pistons please stand up and accept the appropriate derision?).

Back in '09 or so I had a pro re-buid and something wasn't quite right and the car kept running hotter and hotter a little bit more every weekend until it finally hit something like 250, really blew the head gasket, and ended my season. After teardown, it was suggested I re-ring it - something about high temps and losing ring tension, etc.

So I went to the J&E catalog, found the pistons for a ford 2L and the associated ring pack. Here's where I was a dumbass - I didn't notice that J&E made a set of SCCA compliant pistons AND a set for the general public. The SCCA parts weren't in their catalog. The difference? The SCCA parts require a 1/16+1/16+4mm ring pack, while the "normal" parts use a 1/16+1/16+3/16 ring pack. 4mm is just slightly larger...

Put the parts together and I suppose a more experienced builder might notice the difference (slop in the oil control set fit). I didn't.

I really had no performance issues with this engine - except my normal method of "putting oil in until it comes out" wasn't working. I did hot leak down after every event - no issues. Finally I tried something - a hot leak down with the piston moved down in the cylinder and the drivetrain jammed up to prevent movement. Holy crap - huge leak down problem.

Tore the engine down and found just pieces of the oil control ring separators in the lands. Liners had to be replaced. Interestingly, there was almost no discernible consequences to the pistons - I used them for another 6 years. The bearings weren't damaged either - must have stopped everything in the filters and screens.

So I called J&E about the problem - and talked to the guy that designed the SCCA compliant piston - and got a huge earful about the club leadership. He was furious with the interaction he had back then. They wanted to use their standard off the shelf part - with the 1/16+1/16+3/16 ring pack - but the club insisted on the 4mm ring pack because of a perceived small HP gain with the smaller oil control set. This then required the owners to have to buy TWO sets of rings to make one set for the engine - a modern set and one for the original Mahle/Ford units - and then of course modify the 4mm rings to get the same performance that the modern ring pack does by design.

Really, when it comes to cost control, could anyone have made a dumber decision? The reason for the new pistons was to reduce the need to life the original parts - and thus save money, and then they hobble the solution with this stupid ring pack decision.

Incidentally, we couldn't find a set of the 4mm rings on the schedule I had to meet so my local builder and I cobbled together a set from some mitsubishi 2.3L parts - and I got 45 hrs out of that bottom end.

[Roland V. Johnson]

Sure, that all sounds great............You want to prove that the other parts have no power advantage? Just send all the engine builders a set of the proposed parts and let them dyno them and prove it. Amazing, could it be a new year with the same old misinformation.

[Eric Little]

Sure, that all sounds great............You want to prove that the other parts have no power advantage? Just send all the engine builders a set of the proposed parts and let them dyno them and prove it. Amazing, could it be a new year with the same old misinformation.

Roland,

I am going to assume that the final statement with regard to providing "misinformation" is directed at me. I could be wrong and if you are accusing Todd, Daryl, Joe, Craig, Bob, or Rick, then please let me know.

Assuming it is me, I ask that you identify the "misinformation" you believe me to have provided. I do not believe I have, so if you believe I did, I would like to be given the opportunity to address the allegation. In sum, I have provided the following information:

1) JE has presented a piston to the SCCA that is the equivalent of the currently approved CP piston (to be validated by SCCA)
2) Manley has available valves that meet the dimensions for Kent FF valves specified in the GCR
3) The combination of these items based on information from JE and Manley will retail for approximately $500 less than the currently mandated single supplier parts
4) That this represents (clearly in the opinion of the writer) a significant cost savings that is approximately the cost of an SCCA race weekend entry
5) Competition among parts suppliers is a benefit to racers
6) A request to SCCA members to write the CRB to indicate their support with notification to me that such has been done
7) The parts do not and were not intended to provide a performance advantage (again, to be validated by the SCCA)
8) The SCCA is evaluating the request and asked for evidence that demand for the products exists
9) The SCCA has a process to evaluate the equivalency of various parts
10) If the SCCA can make the Honda and Kent motors equal competitors (as a number of racers appear to believe) I do not think it impossible to evaluate the performance differential of two pistons or valves.
11) The vintage ranks can feel free to not adopt such a rules change if they and/or their membership do not want it

I would very much appreciate understanding which of these items I have "misinformed" the community about. If it is something else I wrote that is not in this list, please let me know what it is and how it has "misinformed"

While you may have a preferred method of proving the relative performance, JE has submitted the piston to the SCCA and the SCCA will determine the validation necessary. That said, logically, a piston with all of the same dimensions will perform the same as the currently approved piston. While rampant speculation may be an entertaining source of conversation, the facts are in front of the SCCA for a decision. The issue at odds here was simply an effort to have members express an interest in a non-performance enhancing alternative part at a lower cost. And so far, the response has been very good. Thanks to all of those that have sent their letter to the CRB. Please keep them coming.

Eric Little

[Daryl DeArman]

You want to prove that the other parts have no power advantage? Just send all the engine builders a set of the proposed parts and let them dyno them and prove it.

That would be great if it were somehow possible for them to not know which parts are in the engine on the dyno.

It would also be nice if it were possible for those engine builders to not know which parts they were assembling so that they paid the same attention to detail with regards to spring seat pressure, ring gaps, piston to wall clearance, oil viscosity and temperature, etc.

Don't foresee either of those as likely, so when they can't dyno the same engine back to back with the same numbers, they're likely to claim that 1.5HP advantage was the parts and not the deviation from pull to pull without any changes.

[Roland V. Johnson]

Eric as to misinformation

2. The Manley valves that I have seen are not the same shape as the stock valve. Please post a picture of the proposed valve. The SCCA rules require the valve shape is not changed. If a head is optimized to use that valve I am sure there is more power to be had. Those valves will quickly make everyone's stock valves obsolete, costing everyone new valves. Prove that is not the case.

5. Parts competition in Formula Ford is a good thing. FF was founded on the premise that there would be no parts competition. Standard Ford Cortina parts would be required, with extremely limited aftermarket items allowed.

7. No advantages with these parts...........(See item 2)

As for the methodology of insuring that these parts are not a performance advantage, that was SCCA requirements when new pistons were proposed by Jay Ivey.
Daryl a double blind test would be a wonderful thing, you make it happen. Sending the major FF engine builders parts to test seems the most economical and practical way that I know of.

[billtebbutt]

"There was some speculation that this would be a performance advantage yet I have not seen a number of Honda drivers run out for new pistons to "chase" the performance advantage"

How would we know who was/wasn't using these pistons, or how many people were using them? No professional builder would say anything about who is using what (and as a customer, if a builder said anything to anyone about what was in my engine, I'd be looking for a new builder). And as a competitor, I sure wouldn't be saying anything to anyone. At the next scheduled rebuild (assuming it required new pistons anyhow), at the margin would anyone who knows anything about engines insist on using the stock-sized piston versus the larger one? No replacement for displacement and all......

best,
bt

[Bernard Bradpiece]

Roland,

I am going to assume that the final statement with regard to providing "misinformation" is directed at me. I could be wrong and if you are accusing Todd, Daryl, Joe, Craig, Bob, or Rick, then please let me know.

Assuming it is me, I ask that you identify the "misinformation" you believe me to have provided. I do not believe I have, so if you believe I did, I would like to be given the opportunity to address the allegation. In sum, I have provided the following information:

1) JE has presented a piston to the SCCA that is the equivalent of the currently approved CP piston (to be validated by SCCA)
2) Manley has available valves that meet the dimensions for Kent FF valves specified in the GCR
3) The combination of these items based on information from JE and Manley will retail for approximately $500 less than the currently mandated single supplier parts
4) That this represents (clearly in the opinion of the writer) a significant cost savings that is approximately the cost of an SCCA race weekend entry
5) Competition among parts suppliers is a benefit to racers
6) A request to SCCA members to write the CRB to indicate their support with notification to me that such has been done
7) The parts do not and were not intended to provide a performance advantage (again, to be validated by the SCCA)
8) The SCCA is evaluating the request and asked for evidence that demand for the products exists
9) The SCCA has a process to evaluate the equivalency of various parts
10) If the SCCA can make the Honda and Kent motors equal competitors (as a number of racers appear to believe) I do not think it impossible to evaluate the performance differential of two pistons or valves.
11) The vintage ranks can feel free to not adopt such a rules change if they and/or their membership do not want it

I would very much appreciate understanding which of these items I have "misinformed" the community about. If it is something else I wrote that is not in this list, please let me know what it is and how it has "misinformed"

While you may have a preferred method of proving the relative performance, JE has submitted the piston to the SCCA and the SCCA will determine the validation necessary. That said, logically, a piston with all of the same dimensions will perform the same as the currently approved piston. While rampant speculation may be an entertaining source of conversation, the facts are in front of the SCCA for a decision. The issue at odds here was simply an effort to have members express an interest in a non-performance enhancing alternative part at a lower cost. And so far, the response has been very good. Thanks to all of those that have sent their letter to the CRB. Please keep them coming.

Eric Little

Eric,
By dismissing the "vintage guys" you miss a vital point.

The majority of Ford engined Formula F's now run in vintage. The major series around the US get 35 to 40 cars as a norm per meeting. Its where the majority of Fords went to race after the SCCA Formula F debacle. The front running Vintage Fords (and many of the midpack) run current engines. At one point we had different series running to different engine rules - and the builders building to current regs anyways, so many "vintage" engines were "illegal". The various series have now sorted that out and most of the series around the US use current SCCA Ford regs. The engine builders are not going to build and certify engines to several different engine rules.

So any change in rules actually affects vintage racers more than any other group - they are the majority of the engine builders customers. From your throwaway comment about vintage I might surmise you are operating on the "vintage are old ladies" level of knowledge. I must inform you that running at the front in any of the vintage series requires the same dedication and skill set that was required when FF was in its heyday. Competition is fierce, the cars well set up and similar in performance and a good number of very fast drivers running at top SCCA level. If one guy gets another 2hp that will make all the difference in passing in the draft.

So in fact its the vintage guys who will be most affected by your proposal. I make no comment about your proposal's merits, its above my pay grade, but know your target market.

BB

[Eric Little]

Roland,

Still not getting the misinformation. So let me address your points:

2. The Manley valves that I have seen are not the same shape as the stock valve. Please post a picture of the proposed valve. The SCCA rules require the valve shape is not changed. If a head is optimized to use that valve I am sure there is more power to be had. Those valves will quickly make everyone's stock valves obsolete, costing everyone new valves. Prove that is not the case.

Did you miss the part where I clearly said, "to be validated by the SCCA"? You think the valve is different from the one you saw. The one I have seen and compared appeared and measured the same. But I am willing to let SCCA make the measurements and validate equivalency. So what I said was Manley has a valve of the correct dimensions and agreed that this would be subject to validation by the SCCA. How is that misinformation? I did not say, blindly trust me, they are the same. I would therefore disagree that I have provide misinformation.

5. Parts competition in Formula Ford is a good thing. FF was founded on the premise that there would be no parts competition. Standard Ford Cortina parts would be required, with extremely limited aftermarket items allowed.

On what basis FF was premised is of no relevance to my statement. Competition among suppliers leads to an economically efficient outcome where consumer and producer surplus is maximized and no dead weight loss occurs (Sorry, I am an economist). Parts competition means buying from multiple manufacturers and multiple retail distributors where competitive forces dictate that the part is sold without excessive profit at the cost of the consumer. This has nothing to do with the premise upon which you purport the class to have been based even if we all agreed with your belief of the premise of the class. So again, I see no misinformation.

7. No advantages with these parts...........(See item 2)

See my response to item #2. "to be validated by the SCCA"

As for the methodology of insuring that these parts are not a performance advantage, that was SCCA requirements when new pistons were proposed by Jay Ivey.

Times change and the sanctioning body may (or may not) change their standards. The SCCA will validate in the manner they believe to be appropriate. We will all have our own preferred methods. If we feel the SCCA has failed us, we either volunteer ourselves, elect different personnel, or run with a different sanctioning body who is free to set their own rules.

Eric Little

[Eric Little]

At the next scheduled rebuild (assuming it required new pistons anyhow), at the margin would anyone who knows anything about engines insist on using the stock-sized piston versus the larger one? No replacement for displacement and all......

best,
bt

Bill,

My point exactly. I interpret "chasing" a performance advantage as immediate replacement of parts that is not necessary. If a larger piston is installed at the next rebuild (which for a Honda is purported to be at very lengthy intervals), then I do not see that as "chasing" anything.

Additionally, it was not really my primary point. The primary point was that the 0.25mm (approximately 0.010") larger piston was approved by the SCCA for the Honda. In a thread on this site, much was speculated about the performance differential yet SCCA approved it either as having no competitive advantage or as having such a slight differential in performance that the ability of Honda racers to save cost in being allowed an over sized piston was acceptable. I then compared this to a piston which is the same in dimension to the currently approved piston. In this case then, not only will it provide more economic alternatives to the racer but it will not have a performance advantage (subject to validation by the SCCA). I am still trying to understand what minute difference there may be between the currently approved piston and one of the same dimensions that is somehow greater than the performance differential of a 0.010" over sized piston.

Eric Little

[Roland V. Johnson]

Just out of curiosity Eric........just what is your method of determining a performance advantage?

[Eric Little]

Eric,
By dismissing the "vintage guys" you miss a vital point.

The majority of Ford engined Formula F's now run in vintage. The major series around the US get 35 to 40 cars as a norm per meeting. Its where the majority of Fords went to race after the SCCA Formula F debacle. The front running Vintage Fords (and many of the midpack) run current engines. At one point we had different series running to different engine rules - and the builders building to current regs anyways, so many "vintage" engines were "illegal". The various series have now sorted that out and most of the series around the US use current SCCA Ford regs. The engine builders are not going to build and certify engines to several different engine rules.

So any change in rules actually affects vintage racers more than any other group - they are the majority of the engine builders customers. From your throwaway comment about vintage I might surmise you are operating on the "vintage are old ladies" level of knowledge. I must inform you that running at the front in any of the vintage series requires the same dedication and skill set that was required when FF was in its heyday. Competition is fierce, the cars well set up and similar in performance and a good number of very fast drivers running at top SCCA level. If one guy gets another 2hp that will make all the difference in passing in the draft.

So in fact its the vintage guys who will be most affected by your proposal. I make no comment about your proposal's merits, its above my pay grade, but know your target market.

BB

Bernard,

I am not dismissing the vintage racer in any way, shape, or form. To the contrary, I have stated that if the vintage racers do not like this rule, they can choose to not adopt it just as has been done with other items including but not limited to, the Honda engine, tires, modern chassis, etc.

I do not surmise anything about the quality of vintage racers nor have I said explicitly or implicitly anything about their dedication and skill. I have no issues if someone has decided that they would rather run vintage than the SCCA. I am simply asking those that are SCCA members to support a rules change that I (and a number of others based upon responses so far) believe to be in the interest of the SCCA racers. It is not a throw-away at all to offer that the vintage organizations can choose not to follow this rule if they so desire.

Finally, as I have stated on numerous occasions, it is not the intent of this request to provide a competitive advantage. I fully expect that the SCCA will evaluate the piston and valve to determine that the intent has been met. If that is indeed the case, then there should be no need for vintage organizations to not adopt this rule as there will not be a "2hp" gain. In fact, any gain will be within the margin for testing error. None the less, the vintage organizations can freely choose to not adopt this rule.

Eric Little

P.S. For the record, I started racing with a vintage organization and moved to the SCCA after a few seasons. So I do know how fast vintage drivers can be and know well the skill and dedication level.

[Eric Little]

Just out of curiosity Eric........just what is your method of determining a performance advantage?

My method is not relevant. It is the SCCA's responsibility. JE submitted and gave the reasons they believe it is not a competitive advantage. The SCCA will determine if they believe that reason or if they require more.

Eric Little

[Bernard Bradpiece]

Eric,
Thank you for the considered response.

The thought I was trying to get across is that whatever the result of the SCCA machinations, the engine builders will only build one engine to SCCA spec. It would be a nightmare building to several different specs for each series that adopted a different set of rules. So whatever is decided by SCCA, the engine builders will follow SCCA, figure out if any duplicate part has a performance advantage and put the best part in their engine. So If there is any performance advantage drivers with "old" spec engines will be at a disadvantage until they upgrade. That will certainly encourage some to prematurely haul out their motors and have an upgrade (again not commenting on the sense in doing that but we know from history there will always be someone trying to buy a place forward).

Verifying that the parts are identical and continuing to test that spec is never changed will be important. This is the disadvantage of multiple suppliers. Reduced cost is the advantage. Quality is not an issue for the existing approved parts which is why we are getting 50+ hours between bottom end refreshes now.

Have fun with this and let me know if I have to prematurely send my engine back to get a couple of extra HP!!!

BB

[Peter Olivola]

On what basis FF was premised is of no relevance to my statement. Competition among suppliers leads to an economically efficient outcome where consumer and producer surplus is maximized and no dead weight loss occurs (Sorry, I am an economist). Parts competition means buying from multiple manufacturers and multiple retail distributors where competitive forces dictate that the part is sold without excessive profit at the cost of the consumer. This has nothing to do with the premise upon which you purport the class to have been based even if we all agreed with your belief of the premise of the class. So again, I see no misinformation.

The notion that competition always results in lower costs is where this breaks down. In theory, competition is created when someone sees an opportunity to bring something to market that is cheaper, better or both. However, that begs the question; which economic model does the FF market match? Where is the opportunity for economy of scale? Applying any economic model to such a small market is disingenuous at best.

[Daryl DeArman]

Applying any economic model to such a small market is disingenuous at best.

I don't have an advanced degree in Economics, but I am pretty good with my wallet. I feel comfortable stating that if I have 10 places I can go to buy a widget that I will get a better value for my dollar than if I only had 1 place. Even if those 10 all have the same price, somebody will differentiate themselves with service and/or convenience.

On the other hand, why a manufacturer would want to get involved in tooling up for such a small market is beyond me. Even in cases like Rick spoke to earlier in the thread, where one blank might make 100 different parts, somebody still has to set up the machine to make that run. Is it even worth loading the blanks and selecting the program for a run of 3 or 4 sets at a time?

[billtebbutt]

Has anybody here actually tried to manufacture a FF part themselves in any volume and make money doing it??

I have, and it ain't easy to succeed even a little (I did, if you define success as "not losing money" but it was mostly luck!) . And I am not talking about a specific alternative engine part (ie with actual specs that have to be "matched" to the current spec part). It's generally a damn small, fickle market. In my case, the original monopoly supplier was being a dick in terms of design and pricing - so common sense opened up the opportunity. Our product saved racers a pantload of dosh over the years, but we didn't make much along the way. We have not made parts for a few years now, and won't be doing it again. I can tolerate only so much fun

All to say, unless the current suppliers of the parts being discussed here are abusing their pricing power (and it doesn't seem like that to me), by bringing new suppliers on board we risk losing our current suppliers. And after they are gone and the new guys realize that we are a frugal and fickle lot and they cut bait, we're going to be where exactly?

best
bt

[Eric Little]

The notion that competition always results in lower costs is where this breaks down. In theory, competition is created when someone sees an opportunity to bring something to market that is cheaper, better or both. However, that begs the question; which economic model does the FF market match? Where is the opportunity for economy of scale? Applying any economic model to such a small market is disingenuous at best.

I did not say it results in lower costs always. I said it was economically efficient. If it is the consumer exercising market power (called monopsony power) then competition actually would raise prices. Competition prevents either side from moving prices in their advantage. This is true of small and large markets alike.

I did say that in this case, the manufacturers of these items are offering them at lower cost than the presently approved alternative. I did not claim nor would I claim that this will always be the case.

Eric Little

[Roland V. Johnson]

And about those Manley valves, Eric?

[Roland V. Johnson]

We currently have no parts supply problem that I am aware of. It appears to me that if you do not have any plan to make sure they will not be a competitive advantage. If there is an advantage everyone who wants to remain competitive will be required to prematurely spend money and rebuild their engine to install those parts. Where is the economic advantage there? Therefore there is absolutely no reason for any sanctioning body to allow them.

[Daryl DeArman]

If there is an advantage everyone who wants to remain competitive will be required to prematurely spend money and rebuild their engine to install those parts.

Why do you believe that if there is a competitive advantage that the SCCA will approve them as alternate parts when supply of currently legal parts is sufficient?

Fearmongering much?

[Eric Little]

And about those Manley valves, Eric?

What about them Roland? I answered your question. The valves I have seen are of the same dimensions. You state that you have seen valves that are not. I stated that the SCCA will then have to evaluate the equity. Not sure what else you want to know.

If it is photos, a two dimensional photo will not allow that analysis you are asking for. SCCA can do that analysis on two actual valves in three dimensions to satisfy their needs.

Eric Little

[Eric Little]

We currently have no parts supply problem that I am aware of. It appears to me that if you do not have any plan to make sure they will not be a competitive advantage. If there is an advantage everyone who wants to remain competitive will be required to prematurely spend money and rebuild their engine to install those parts. Where is the economic advantage there? Therefore there is absolutely no reason for any sanctioning body to allow them.

I would call over a 77.6% markup a parts supply problem.

https://www.pegasusautoracing.com/pr...asp?RecID=3483
class legal wrist pin at 15.99 each = 63.96 for a set of four

https://www.pegasusautoracing.com/pr...asp?RecID=8403
class legal rings (over sized piston as I think most Kent motors are in that state by now). 154.99 for the set

https://www.pegasusautoracing.com/pr...asp?RecID=5919
class legal piston (also over size) 669.00

63.96 + 154.99 + 669 = 887.95 Currently class legal piston, wrist pin, and rings

As stated earlier, JE has indicated a price below $500.00 for the same.

(887.95 - 500) / 500 = .7759

Someone earlier said something about the current prices not taking advantage of market power. I would tend to disagree.

So yes, I do believe there is a parts supply problem.

Eric Little

[stonebridge20]

Who pays for the testing of the proposed parts?

[Eric Little]

As to the ability of JE to make a living at producing these pistons, a lot has been made of the economics of doing so. While I am an economist, I do not know enough about JE to evaluate myself. I therefore have to think that a company that makes its living manufacturing pistons for a host of applications (including the highly lucrative FC piston where they compete with AE Hepolite, Mahle, CP, and Wiseco) will know enough about their business, costs, economies of scale, and potential market for this product to make an informed decision.

Eric Little

[Eric Little]

Who pays for the testing of the proposed parts?

I would imagine that if the SCCA sees testing necessary, they will present this to JE and JE can decide to pursue or not. I do not know this for a fact but it is what I would assume would happen since I am unaware of a budget at the SCCA to perform such testing.

Eric Little

[Eric Little]

Eric,
Thank you for the considered response.

The thought I was trying to get across is that whatever the result of the SCCA machinations, the engine builders will only build one engine to SCCA spec. It would be a nightmare building to several different specs for each series that adopted a different set of rules. So whatever is decided by SCCA, the engine builders will follow SCCA, figure out if any duplicate part has a performance advantage and put the best part in their engine.

BB

Thanks Bernard. If I had a motor builder that I asked to build a powerful, reliable, and compliant motor with the spec of my organization and they refused to build to that rule book, I would fire them faster than they could blink.

The builders I know build four cylinder, six cylinder, and eight cylinder vehicles. Many with a variety of sanctioning bodies and some that are not race motors and therefore have no restrictions. Part of being a builder is understanding the rules you have to live within. I find it hard to believe that a builder would turn away business because this motor has to run a different piston of the same dimensions as the motor for a different customer.

I suppose it is possible but I would be worried about the attention to detail my motor is getting from such a builder if they are so inflexible as to not be okay with buying a compliant piston.

Eric Little

[Eric Little]

A minor point: Pegasus sells CP pistons, rings and wrist pins for $834; the valve sets are $251, so the stated delta is approximately $400, not $500.

If your Kent motor is on the standard size piston, I agree. I think with most blocks being as old as they are, they are probably on the over sized piston witch is more than $50 more per set ($887.95). In addition, JE said a price below $500. I don't know if that will mean 499.99 or 475. That said, the piston difference for over sized is 887.95 - 500 = 387.95 and the Manley valve is another $75 savings for the set. 387.95 + 75 = 462.95. With JE being below 500 and that calculation being at $500, I do not find it misinformation to say that the difference is "approximately $500".

I know you said it was a minor point but with the accusations from others of misinformation, I do not view this as being something that someone would reasonably consider to be "misinformation". And again, I do agree with you that if you are lucky enough to have a block with standard bore size, the savings will be less. I just don't think there are many in that camp.

Eric Little

[stonebridge20]

I would imagine that if the SCCA sees testing necessary, they will present this to JE and JE can decide to pursue or not. I do not know this for a fact but it is what I would assume would happen since I am unaware of a budget at the SCCA to perform such testing.

Eric Little

I would think that any alternative/ replacement part would need to be "tested" for compliance with the GCR and for any performance potential.
J&E sells more NASCAR pistons in a day then they will sell FF pistons in a year. I doubt they would invest a penny into paying for any independent "testing"
I also don't see SCCA writing any checks to Whoever Race Engines Inc for their shop time in testing these parts for a class that brought 14 cars to the Runoffs, 13 of which were Hondas.

[Eric Little]

J&E sells more NASCAR pistons in a day then they will sell FF pistons in a year. I doubt they would invest a penny into paying for any independent "testing"

As noted earlier, JE builds pistons for FC. There, they compete with more than just CP for that sale. Add to that, there are more FF cars than there are FC. Somehow, JE found the funding, desire, and business model to do that even while producing parts for NASCAR.

Again, I will leave it to JE to decide what is in their best interest and since they have been pursuing this and have already had a piston approved for FC, I think they understand the process and have made decisions on that basis.

Eric Little

[Rick Kirchner]

Why do people insist on testing for everything? A lot of here are engineers. And while data is the proof of the pudding, If you create a spec with the intent of controlling all significant parameters where two manufacturers can produce items that vary more than a percent, then you suck at writing a spec, or don't truly understand the technology you are attempting to define.

[stonebridge20]

As noted earlier, JE builds pistons for FC. There, they compete with more than just CP for that sale. Add to that, there are more FF cars than there are FC. Somehow, JE found the funding, desire, and business model to do that even while producing parts for NASCAR.

Again, I will leave it to JE to decide what is in their best interest and since they have been pursuing this and have already had a piston approved for FC, I think they understand the process and have made decisions on that basis.

Eric Little

You don't think J&E came out of the woodwork all on their own and showed up on SCCA's doorstep with a FC piston do you, because that's not how it happened.

Who approached J&E to build Kent pistons?