Cost cutting part supply... Your action requested

[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?

Me. Along with my builder.

JE however has done ALL of the work. We simply presented them with the currently approved piston and asked if they could make it. They did the rest to create engineered drawings, examples, file it with SCCA, and answer the SCCA's questions.

Neither I nor my builder have paid JE anything to do any of this work. They decided it was a business they wanted to pursue and accepted that there may be costs to pursuing it.

I have to admit that I am a bit dismayed by exactly this. The last person that took a piston to a manufacturer, asked if they could build it, and got it through SCCA is the hero that saved the class.

The guy that does the same to give a lower cost alternative spends his time defending himself from vilification.

Good thing I have thick skin and a three layer fire suit I suppose.

Eric Little

[stonebridge20]

Exactly how J&E and CP make all of my custom one off pistons. And they usually only sell 4 or 6 of them.

Maybe because as an "outsider" being privy to the inner workings of other SCCA deals over the past way too many years, I'm skeptical of everything.

It'll all come out in the book some day. I just need a few more people to die off so I don't get sued.

[Daryl DeArman]

FC has 6 different pistons from 5 different manufacturers. Two valve manufacturers, and looks like 4 different rod manufacturers.

I'm wondering why seemingly so much resistance to introducing another piston and valve manufacturer in FF?

[billtebbutt]

Come on Eric, cheer up! It could be much worse. For example, you could be an investment banker (me), and have singlehandedly caused the entire 2008 financial crisis!!!!


bt

Me. Along with my builder.

JE however has done ALL of the work. We simply presented them with the currently approved piston and asked if they could make it. They did the rest to create engineered drawings, examples, file it with SCCA, and answer the SCCA's questions.

Neither I nor my builder have paid JE anything to do any of this work. They decided it was a business they wanted to pursue and accepted that there may be costs to pursuing it.

I have to admit that I am a bit dismayed by exactly this. The last person that took a piston to a manufacturer, asked if they could build it, and got it through SCCA is the hero that saved the class.

The guy that does the same to give a lower cost alternative spends his time defending himself from vilification.

Good thing I have thick skin and a three layer fire suit I suppose.

Eric Little

[DanW]

Me. Along with my builder.

JE however has done ALL of the work. We simply presented them with the currently approved piston and asked if they could make it. They did the rest to create engineered drawings, examples, file it with SCCA, and answer the SCCA's questions.

Neither I nor my builder have paid JE anything to do any of this work. They decided it was a business they wanted to pursue and accepted that there may be costs to pursuing it.

I have to admit that I am a bit dismayed by exactly this. The last person that took a piston to a manufacturer, asked if they could build it, and got it through SCCA is the hero that saved the class.

The guy that does the same to give a lower cost alternative spends his time defending himself from vilification.

Good thing I have thick skin and a three layer fire suit I suppose.

Eric Little

Eric,

If you think this is tough, try getting new Kent pistons approved in the UK.....

[Roland V. Johnson]

Maybe my math skills are not as good as an economist. Exactly how did you come up with a 77.6% markup? How did you manage to come up with the supplier's cost?

Regarding the valves, they have a shape, particularly between the stem and the head of the valve. Different shapes flow differently. You state that the valves have the same dimensions. If that shape is different, they do not have the same dimensions. The GCR requires that the shape may not be changed. If you want to give every Formula Ford owner a set of those valves and pay for the labor to install them I might be on your side.

Just a couple of questions I have regarding the pistons. How long did J E agree to hold that Less than $500 price? If they are sold through a second party how much do you think they will cost. Will J E make special dimension pistons off that same blank and sell them to some engine builders with the Formula Ford part number on them?

[stonebridge20]

Regarding the valves, they have a shape, particularly between the stem and the head of the valve. Different shapes flow differently. You state that the valves have the same dimensions. If that shape is different, they do not have the same dimensions. The GCR requires that the shape may not be changed.

Bingo !

I will bet dollars to donuts that the Manley valve will have better flow characteristics then the currently approved valve, making it a "must have" part.

This opinion coming from a known "Honda hater"

[Daryl DeArman]

Bingo !

I will bet dollars to donuts that the Manley valve will have better flow characteristics then the currently approved valve, making it a "must have" part.

This opinion coming from a known "Honda hater"

Based on whose head? At what lift .050", .100", max lift? Flow characteristics meaning swirl off the intake valve, or CFM on the exhaust or what magic metric? What if the intake valve is worse and the exhaust is better but you must use them as a pair?

Whole lot of fear about what may be nothing. With apparently, no faith in the SCCA to be objective in their analysis. This coming from a known "SCCA hater"

[Eric Little]

Maybe my math skills are not as good as an economist. Exactly how did you come up with a 77.6% markup? How did you manage to come up with the supplier's cost?

Regarding the valves, they have a shape, particularly between the stem and the head of the valve. Different shapes flow differently. You state that the valves have the same dimensions. If that shape is different, they do not have the same dimensions. The GCR requires that the shape may not be changed. If you want to give every Formula Ford owner a set of those valves and pay for the labor to install them I might be on your side.

Just a couple of questions I have regarding the pistons. How long did J E agree to hold that Less than $500 price? If they are sold through a second party how much do you think they will cost. Will J E make special dimension pistons off that same blank and sell them to some engine builders with the Formula Ford part number on them?

Post #31 for the calculation. The currently legal piston is 77.6% more expensive than the proposed MSRP from JE. And saying that it is MSRP addresses your question about what the retailer will charge. I would expect them to be charging that amount or potentially discounting it since it is an exceptional situation to price above MSRP. So if you are looking for the markup over manufacturing cost, you are right, it is likely north of 77.6%.

In answer to your how long with that last, I will ask how long are we willing to pay 77.6% more just because we fear that JE will raise their price. How long did Honda guarantee a price for conversions? How long did CP guarantee a price for the current piston? How about SCAT, Pierce, or any chassis manufacturer out there? Truth is competition leads to efficient market outcomes. That is all I am looking for. Roland, I cannot tell you what inflation will be next year. I cannot tell you what supply and demand for that part will do. I have not studied those areas closely enough to give you a forecast. But I suspect that the typical things that drive prices from a cost basis will impact both manufacturers pretty equally.

I think your last question is one of the ethics of the parts manufacturer. And since such accusations have floated around that the manufacturer of the currently approved piston had done what you suggested, I would ask the same for those. As I clearly stated, the manufacturers have an incentive to produce legal parts or risk having the SCCA disallow their parts removing them from the market. This is true of any parts manufacturer so I am not sure what additional guarantee you think you need here.

As for the valves, I am not sure how many times I need to repeat myself. EQUITY TO BE DETERMINED BY THE SCCA!

Eric Little

[tstrong]

Eric, I think your proposal is viable and as can be seen there are pros and cons for any model we pursue. What I have tried to point out is that the potential cons far outweigh the potential pros in my opinion. By your own calculations the expected savings is something less than $500 for both a piston and valve change. As I mentioned before not just me, but a large number of folks running at the pointy end of FF grid across the country are getting 50+ hrs between rebuilds and easily 3-5 rebuilds on pistons and similar (or slightly less) life on valves. So you are going to save me $500 on lets say 200 hrs of engine use (4 rebuilds). I do about 10 weekends a year and therefore end up doing rebuild every 2-3 years. So best case over the next 8 years of racing and 4 rebuilds your proposal will save me $500. Not enough to in any way change my racing habits. And by the way the 4 rebuilds will have cost me on the order of $16-20K so the cost of a set of pistons is not a driver.

So one outcome is everything is specified, implemented, policed and enforced perfectly and the are no real or perceived advantages across the different parts and everyone is happy saving their $500 on $20K expenditure. My engineer math says that equates to about a 2.5 % decrease in my engine only racing budget.

Or, on the other hand we could end up with parts that in fact do not end up being equivalent in either performance or durability and drive folks to make changes and chase the better product costing them money as well as then shrinking the market such that the “inferior” supplier gives up and quits building parts resulting in a new single source supplier (back to where we are today which apparently you think is broken).

In my simple mind this is one of those if it ain’t broken, don’t fix it scenarios. If it is really going to help you stay in the sport (or do more events), if you are still racing a Kent powered FF in 8 years and need a new set of pistons I will give you the $500. Todd

[Eric Little]

Eric, I think your proposal is viable and as can be seen there are pros and cons for any model we pursue. What I have tried to point out is that the potential cons far outweigh the potential pros in my opinion. By your own calculations the expected savings is something less than $500 for both a piston and valve change. As I mentioned before not just me, but a large number of folks running at the pointy end of FF grid across the country are getting 50+ hrs between rebuilds and easily 3-5 rebuilds on pistons and similar (or slightly less) life on valves. So you are going to save me $500 on lets say 200 hrs of engine use (4 rebuilds). I do about 10 weekends a year and therefore end up doing rebuild every 2-3 years. So best case over the next 8 years of racing and 4 rebuilds your proposal will save me $500. Not enough to in any way change my racing habits. And by the way the 4 rebuilds will have cost me on the order of $16-20K so the cost of a set of pistons is not a driver.

So one outcome is everything is specified, implemented, policed and enforced perfectly and the are no real or perceived advantages across the different parts and everyone is happy saving their $500 on $20K expenditure. My engineer math says that equates to about a 2.5 % decrease in my engine only racing budget.

Or, on the other hand we could end up with parts that in fact do not end up being equivalent in either performance or durability and drive folks to make changes and chase the better product costing them money as well as then shrinking the market such that the “inferior” supplier gives up and quits building parts resulting in a new single source supplier (back to where we are today which apparently you think is broken).

In my simple mind this is one of those if it ain’t broken, don’t fix it scenarios. If it is really going to help you stay in the sport (or do more events), if you are still racing a Kent powered FF in 8 years and need a new set of pistons I will give you the $500. Todd

Todd,

I don't want your money. I want economic competition to produce an efficient outcome. It is that simple. I expect that SCCA will test the pistons and if equitable will approve. You find the cost to be no big deal. Others do not feel the same. As for if it is not broke, don't fix it, I would call the price of the current piston far above the price of the proposed part to be broken. You can see it differently but please show me a competitive market in which the product itself is indistinguishable and the price differential is that great.

Again, at the end of this, if the vintage drivers do not like this rule, they can choose to not adopt as they have with other parts of the SCCA rules.

Eric Little

[scorp997]

I have been following this thread to see where it goes and what points are brought up. I see a couple glaring points that stand out to me.... please forgive me if it sounds like I am personally attacking your efforts.

First, the assumption is that every rebuild will need pistons, rings and pins - that is where a large part of the 'cost savings' would come from. As others have pointed out, since the Ivey pistons became available the pistons last several (up to 4?) rebuilds and same go for the pins. The only 'savings' would be for the rings......

Next, the rings AND pins are unrestricted (provided they fit the approved pistons) so you don't have to use the 'expensive' ones from Pegasus... You can buy them from JE if you'd like... If the rings you are proposing do not fit the currently approved pistons then the rings you are proposing would be illegal and could offer some sort performance advantage (thinner ring pack? less drag..)

I agree with others here that I don't believe the valves you mention have the same profile of the valve. The rules are VERY clear about reshaping the backside of the valve - where a big flow advantage could be made over the current valve. Also, none of my rebuilds have required valve replacements. Maybe I'm lucky, but I would bet that unless you have a major engine issue, one or two valves may be an average replacement number - not the full set. If, and only if the profiles were exact would I support this change.

You also keep bringing up the need for multiple parts sources. The original intent of Formula Ford was a level playing field via a single source supplier - FORD. The alternate parts were only approved for use when the approved parts sources started drying up and became unavailable. That is why we still only have one source for new pistons, blocks and heads. I would argue that the lack of steel heads required us to approve aluminum - I have 4 steel heads myself - but it was determined that there was a supply shortage so an alternate was approved. I don't see a shortage of any of the parts you are requesting.

I know that it is expensive to develop a replacement part on your own, and I support Jay in his effort to recoup his expenses and dedication to the sport. In reality, there aren't THAT many Formula Ford engine rebuilds requiring replacement pistons to afford multiple manufactures. I have been in manufacturing enough to know that a larger company (like JE) can afford to run a loss leader program to drive competition out of a market and then have the monopoly and ask what they want for part. I believe Jay have done a great job at keeping the piston price consistent over the years and isn't gouging the buyer.

I also want to point out that your comments regarding vintage groups are troubling. I know several people who not only run their car in SCCA but the local vintage/conference race orgs. If you were to build your engine to SCCA's rules, you may not be allowed to run your local vintage races if they don't accept the same rules. As a result, car counts would go down - which currently vintage group counts are much better than SCCA. Yes, there are rule differences between vintage groups (I had to buy a different set of Avons to run at Indy last year), but possibly needing a different engine would not be an option.

I have also worked for several bosses in the past that had CPA backgrounds so I know that ANY set of numbers/data can be presented to justify whatever result you are trying to achieve. So let's be clear and upfront on the true numbers being presented. I'm all for reduced costs, but the amount we are talking about isn't enough to potentially throw the rules into chaos. If the parts listed start to become hard to get, then maybe we can entertain rule changes.

[scorp997]

What if the intake valve is worse and the exhaust is better but you must use them as a pair?

I would hope this rule wouldn't require full matched sets of valve by manufacturer (either sets of intakes, exhausts, or worse both together). Then, you really would need to replace all valves in a rebuild, which isn't the case currently. I would fully expect that if it were determined that the new intake flowed better than the current and the new exhaust worse, that the engine builder (or engine owner) would specify a mismatched set of valves to gain an advantage. This starts the chase for the 'part of the day' and drives the costs up for those who can afford it.

[Daryl DeArman]

I know that it is expensive to develop a replacement part on your own, and I support Jay in his effort to recoup his expenses and dedication to the sport.

I really dislike long term parts monopolies. But just like Big Pharma, the ones that incur all the initial risk should have a right to recoup. . . . for how long? Where's that magic X on the calendar in the club racing world?

As to pistons not needing to be replaced every rebuild, I get that and I don't believe many people insist on new parts that aren't necessary. However, if the average rebuild is $4K-ish and you are essentially getting a set of bearings, rings, (springs?) and all the rest is labor, I'd suggest that magic X on the calendar doesn't need to be too far away.

[TimH]

The original intent of Formula Ford was a level playing field via a single source supplier - FORD. The alternate parts were only approved for use when the approved parts sources started drying up and became unavailable. That is why we still only have one source for new pistons, blocks and heads. I would argue that the lack of steel heads required us to approve aluminum - I have 4 steel heads myself - but it was determined that there was a supply shortage so an alternate was approved. I don't see a shortage of any of the parts you are requesting.

*This*

[stonebridge20]

Me. Along with my builder.

JE however has done ALL of the work. We simply presented them with the currently approved piston and asked if they could make it. They did the rest to create engineered drawings, examples, file it with SCCA, and answer the SCCA's questions.

Neither I nor my builder have paid JE anything to do any of this work. They decided it was a business they wanted to pursue and accepted that there may be costs to pursuing it.



Eric Little

Eric, maybe it would relieve some tension if you say who the engine builder is that's proposing the pistons and valves with you.

[Daryl DeArman]

Eric, maybe it would relieve some tension if you say who the engine builder is that's proposing the pistons and valves with you.

Obviously, I'm not Eric, and Eric is quite capable of speaking for himself.

I can't help myself and I'm certain if Eric disagrees, he'll speak up.

Why does it matter whose idea it is? Let the proposal/idea stand on it's own merit. Dismissing some idea because you (generic) don't endorse the originator smells. If it was Jay's idea, you're all-in? If it is Butler, Loynings or Quicksilver? What if it was Roush that wants to get into FF builds?

Why does the proposal need to get political?

[Eric Little]

First, the assumption is that every rebuild will need pistons, rings and pins - that is where a large part of the 'cost savings' would come from. As others have pointed out, since the Ivey pistons became available the pistons last several (up to 4?) rebuilds and same go for the pins. The only 'savings' would be for the rings......

I searched this thread and don't believe I ever claimed that every rebuild required new pistons. In fact I noted that in my two rebuilds, the pistons have only been replaced once and that was on the motor as it sat when I bought the car which had unknown time on the motor.

Next, the rings AND pins are unrestricted (provided they fit the approved pistons) so you don't have to use the 'expensive' ones from Pegasus... You can buy them from JE if you'd like... If the rings you are proposing do not fit the currently approved pistons then the rings you are proposing would be illegal and could offer some sort performance advantage (thinner ring pack? less drag..)

Agreed but does not change the fact that the currently approved piston all by itself is more expensive than the entire set (piston, ring, and wrist pin) as provided by JE. So even if you got all of those components for free (and I am pretty sure everyone will agree that business model is not likely workable) the cost of the current piston is still considerably more expensive.

I agree with others here that I don't believe the valves you mention have the same profile of the valve. The rules are VERY clear about reshaping the backside of the valve - where a big flow advantage could be made over the current valve. Also, none of my rebuilds have required valve replacements. Maybe I'm lucky, but I would bet that unless you have a major engine issue, one or two valves may be an average replacement number - not the full set. If, and only if the profiles were exact would I support this change.

I think I said this somewhere before... As validated in equity by the SCCA. If it is not, I can accept the rejection of it. a number here seem to have already concluded the answer. I will wait for the sanctioning body to make a decision. As for only having to buy one or two valves, I still want competition placing prices at efficient outcomes whether it is one valve or all 16 (it's a joke).

You also keep bringing up the need for multiple parts sources. The original intent of Formula Ford was a level playing field via a single source supplier - FORD. The alternate parts were only approved for use when the approved parts sources started drying up and became unavailable. That is why we still only have one source for new pistons, blocks and heads. I would argue that the lack of steel heads required us to approve aluminum - I have 4 steel heads myself - but it was determined that there was a supply shortage so an alternate was approved. I don't see a shortage of any of the parts you are requesting.

I did not say it was a shortage of parts. I clearly stated that I believe there to be an exercise of market power and an equal part can be made available for less cost. Also, if you look at the SCCA site on putting forth a new rule (including new parts), there is no restriction on the number of suppliers that could be accepted. So while you believe it may have been the original intent (and I have spoken with others that do not agree with this premise), that is not in the rule book or rules change process anywhere that I can find.

I know that it is expensive to develop a replacement part on your own, and I support Jay in his effort to recoup his expenses and dedication to the sport. In reality, there aren't THAT many Formula Ford engine rebuilds requiring replacement pistons to afford multiple manufactures. I have been in manufacturing enough to know that a larger company (like JE) can afford to run a loss leader program to drive competition out of a market and then have the monopoly and ask what they want for part. I believe Jay have done a great job at keeping the piston price consistent over the years and isn't gouging the buyer.

I did say that in the development of this alternative piston, neither of the people that approached the JE have spent a dime.

So you are worried that JE is going to produce at a loss to drive out CP and then exercise market power. I will note that competition works where there are either multiple entities producing a product or there is free entry to the market. So if JE pushed CP out and raised the price 10000%, the CP is still a legal piston and I would think they could produce and sell them for less than what you speculate JE would do. So I am not seeing your issue.

I also want to point out that your comments regarding vintage groups are troubling. I know several people who not only run their car in SCCA but the local vintage/conference race orgs. If you were to build your engine to SCCA's rules, you may not be allowed to run your local vintage races if they don't accept the same rules. As a result, car counts would go down - which currently vintage group counts are much better than SCCA. Yes, there are rule differences between vintage groups (I had to buy a different set of Avons to run at Indy last year), but possibly needing a different engine would not be an option.

And since the SCCA rules would allow either piston and if the vintage only allowed one, you could still run either series. You could not do so with the second piston if SCCA approves it and in vintage if they don't but you would not be forced to do that. Your premise seems to be that there would be a competitive advantage of the alternate making it noncompetitive in SCCA. A topic we have been over ad nauseam.

I have also worked for several bosses in the past that had CPA backgrounds so I know that ANY set of numbers/data can be presented to justify whatever result you are trying to achieve. So let's be clear and upfront on the true numbers being presented. I'm all for reduced costs, but the amount we are talking about isn't enough to potentially throw the rules into chaos. If the parts listed start to become hard to get, then maybe we can entertain rule changes.

I am not seeing rules chaos. This is the process the SCCA uses to evaluate new rules. But again, I have been over that.

So I am thinking I have nothing left to post here. It seems that most of my responses end up pointing back to the same answers or battling whether the issue raised is even relevant. I don't see that any future responses on my part are going to differ from what I have already said. That combined with spending my morning in an ER, I am tired and don't have the energy at the moment for this. Plus, I need to go finish up the car to go racing at the end of January (it is good to race in SoCal).

Those who like alternatives and economic competition can send their letters. Those that don't see it that way wont. All good.

Eric Little

[stonebridge20]

Obviously, I'm not Eric, and Eric is quite capable of speaking for himself.

I can't help myself and I'm certain if Eric disagrees, he'll speak up.

Why does it matter whose idea it is? Let the proposal/idea stand on it's own merit. Dismissing some idea because you (generic) don't endorse the originator smells. If it was Jay's idea, you're all-in? If it is Butler, Loynings or Quicksilver? What if it was Roush that wants to get into FF builds?

Why does the proposal need to get political?

Um, since the builder isn't posting here, I and maybe others that have skin in this might like to call him/her to talk about these parts and their proposal.

Chill Daryl !

[Eric Little]

Um, since the builder isn't posting here, I and maybe others that have skin in this might like to call him/her to talk about these parts and their proposal.

Chill Daryl !

It is JE's proposal. My builder and I only approached them to ask if they could make an equivalent piston. If you have questions, JE knows the most about the piston itself.

Eric Little

[stonebridge20]

It is JE's proposal. My builder and I only approached them to ask if they could make an equivalent piston. If you have questions, JE knows the most about the piston itself.

Eric Little

What about the valves?
You and your builders proposal or Manley?

Any contact info for who at J&E to talk to about their proposal ?

[Eric Little]

What about the valves?
You and your builders proposal or Manley?

Any contact info for who at J&E to talk to about their proposal ?

I don't know that the Manley valve has been submitted yet.

I will see if I can get you a contact for the pistons. If I can, I will PM you.

Eric Little

[Roland V. Johnson]

Nice tap dance Eric!

[Bernard Bradpiece]

Eric,
I was done with responding but there seems to be a couple of points you are missing. I don't know how long you have been involved with SCCA, but a number of Apexers have been involved for a long time and thus the skepticism. If ever a law was proposed to match the SCCA perfectly its the law of unintended consequences. We are well used to that result from SCCA and a number of us have spend years mopping up after the shambles they created for Formula Ford (not to mention open wheel racing generally). Like our government we are happiest when they are doing nothing - action is usually deadly.

Formula Ford was all but destroyed by the "well meaning" action changing to Formula F and the addition of a new engine to compete with the venerable old Cortina motor. This was a solution in search of a problem. Formula Ford continues to get full grids across Europe and the UK, steel wheels, treaded tires et al. But no, we knew better. The result of the mess is that Honda engined cars largely migrated to FRP, Ford engined cars largely disappeared and languished. SCCA ended with regional grids of two or three cars and complained about entry levels. Thanks to the efforts of a number of individuals around the US - vintage racers and club racers alike, and most particularly of Jay Ivey who created parts to bring engine life to 50+ hours between rebuilds (rather than the previous 10 to 15 hours), Formula Ford is thriving, with a few Hondas in the mix in non-vintage racing. FRP and Right Coast have linked together and so both pro and club level are well catered for (at least on the East Coast).

After years sorting out the mess and bringing the formula back to life, you can understand the skepticism of those who have slaved to bring about the rebirth when we hear the SCCA being asked to do anything that will change the status quo which has allowed us to stabilize the previously precarious situation.

However, you also may not be aware of some trickery that went on a year or so ago when an engine builder in your neck of the woods had pistons made, with all the appropriate markings, but with changed design - that the naked eye could not see, but significantly increased horsepower. This was a blatant attempt at cheating and has left those of us who care about FF racing very wary of changes that can be easily abused. Most of us believe that if Jay is driving the bus we can trust the result. If he is not driving the bus its open season. We do not believe SCCA is capable of figuring this out without causing major problems. We are happy with the status quo. Cheating has all but been eliminated - certainly among the guys at the pointy end. Racers enjoy their racing and the relatively low cost of running a Ford - engine and tires for those groups using a spec tire (thank you Hoosier).

So it needs to be a really good reason for us to embrace change. So far .......................

BB

[Daryl DeArman]

Um, since the builder isn't posting here, I and maybe others that have skin in this might like to call him/her to talk about these parts and their proposal.

Chill Daryl !

I am chill as they come.

I am also not naive enough to believe that if this was Jay's idea that there would be such opposition. Dollars to donuts there would be cheerleaders talking about how there's no competitive advantage and that ya'll need options to keep prices in check.

[Roland V. Johnson]

My letter to CRB

I believe the proposed parts (pistons and valves) should not be approved.
1. I do not believe we have a parts shortage and require them.

2. The proposed Manley valves are not the correct shape as required by the CGR. I addition I do not believe they weigh the same. They will require that anyone wanting to remain competitive must install them.

3. We have a piston that is not extravagantly priced and is a quality part that has extended competitive engine life from 10-15 hours to 50+ hours. That part was approved through an expensive and time consuming process overseen by the SCCA, funded by the manufacturer. There is no such process for the proposed parts.



Daryl Chill
That is because Jay would not do this.

[Daryl DeArman]

Daryl Chill
That is because Jay would not do this.

Jay would not do what? Get an alternate part approved that provided no competitive advantage?

That's exactly what Jay did. And IF that's what happens with the JE piston and Manley valves nobody would have a problem with it if it were Jay's idea.

Jay did all the legwork to get alternate parts approved that essentially saved the racers money and headache. Ya'll now have 40-50hr rebuild intervals instead of 10-20. I don't know anybody that would dispute that. I've stated elsewhere and in this thread that it's my opinion that people that go through such lengths should have the right to a temporary monopoly to recoup.

How long they should have that monopoly? Not my call. Not my class. Not my club.

It's my opinion that this whole thing smells only because of the originator of the idea, instead of the idea itself.

Every rule change since the beginning of racing has been proposed as either (a) cost saving (b) safety improvement and/or (c) needed because of parts shortage. Every rule change argued against has been because of (a) performance advantage and/or (b) no parts shortage. The truth is almost always some combination of both the for/against arguments.

[stonebridge20]

Not my call. Not my class. Not my club.

So you have absolutely no skin in this class or club?

[Roland V. Johnson]

Daryl, At this time I am unfortunately not able to tell you exactly what Jay would not do. However, you and Eric keep stating that Ivey has a monopoly on piston supply. That is not true! . If you look hard enough you can find others still out there.

[stonebridge20]

I don't know that the Manley valve has been submitted yet.

Eric Little

If you dont know if the valve request has been submitted yet, who is submitting it, Manley or your engine builder ?

[Daryl DeArman]

So you have absolutely no skin in this class or club?

Nope. Haven't in 16 years. It's why I don't / won't write a letter to the SCCA with an opinion one way or another. It's also why my opinions are less biased than others.

I will always have a soft spot in my heart for the class. I'd love to see it healthy again.

[Daryl DeArman]

Daryl, At this time I am unfortunately not able to tell you exactly what Jay would not do. However, you and Eric keep stating that Ivey has a monopoly on piston supply. That is not true! .

Where did I say he had one? I said the people, like Jay, who put the effort in and took the risk (not unlike Big Pharma) have the right to recoup their costs. I only questioned how long someone should enjoy that monopoly.

I realize I can order a set of compliant pistons from any number of places. What I'm not certain of is if I order them from Pegasus, did they get them from Jay? If my engine builder was Cricket Farms, does Butler have to get the pistons from Jay? If I order them directly from CP, do they have to give Ivey a couple nickels because his logo is on the piston? Again, I have no issue with that for some period of time. It simply must work that way if want people like Jay to step forward and do things to benefit the class and the racer.

Again, my only questions are why so much resistance if the SCCA determines there's no competitive advantage?
Would this suddenly be a great idea if it was one that Ivey endorsed?

I'll leave ya'll with that. . . Supercross is starting in 6 minutes!

[stonebridge20]

It's my opinion that this whole thing smells only because of the originator of the idea, instead of the idea itself.

Whoa......what does this even mean?

I don't know Eric or his engine builder. So are you saying that Eric, his engine builder or both somehow "smell" of something from the past?

[tstrong]

Ok Mike I will go there but only with facts and no speculation to protect myself from the lawyers in the game. Eric’s engine builder is the same SoCal engine builder whose name is on CP build sheets for around 20 sets of pistons that fit the 1600 cc Ford Kent engine but are of various configuration that would not be legal for formula ford. Don’t know what those pistons were used for, or where they are today. This same engine builder at one time also had Manley stainless steel valves in his shop where FF engines were being built configured to fit the ford head but in a configuration that did not meet the SCCA requirement at the time. I personally witnessed these valves but have no idea if this is the same valve they are talking about now. Todd

[stonebridge20]

Ok Mike I will go there but only with facts and no speculation to protect myself from the lawyers in the game. Eric’s engine builder is the same SoCal engine builder whose name is on CP build sheets for around 20 sets of pistons that fit the 1600 cc Ford Kent engine but are of various configuration that would not be legal for formula ford. Don’t know what those pistons were used for, or where they are today. This same engine builder at one time also had Manley stainless steel valves in his shop where FF engines were being built configured to fit the ford head but in a configuration that did not meet the SCCA requirement at the time. I personally witnessed these valves but have no idea if this is the same valve they are talking about now. Todd

Um, I'll have to digest this a bit !

[Bernard Bradpiece]

Well, well, well, don't tell me all is not what it seems? What a surprise! I thought there was a serious exchange of views going on about managing costs and improving the longevity of supply of Ford engine parts. Maybe Eric can enlighten us and comment on the veracity of Todd's facts.

BB

[stonebridge20]

So this is the engine builder that had pistons made with Ivey logo's on them that we were warned about months ago?

[Eric Little]

Ok Mike I will go there but only with facts and no speculation to protect myself from the lawyers in the game. Eric’s engine builder is the same SoCal engine builder whose name is on CP build sheets for around 20 sets of pistons that fit the 1600 cc Ford Kent engine but are of various configuration that would not be legal for formula ford. Don’t know what those pistons were used for, or where they are today. This same engine builder at one time also had Manley stainless steel valves in his shop where FF engines were being built configured to fit the ford head but in a configuration that did not meet the SCCA requirement at the time. I personally witnessed these valves but have no idea if this is the same valve they are talking about now. Todd

One last time. The piston, as presented by JE, is of the same dimensions as the presently approved pistons. I have been told that one of the (now growing) number of illegal sets was a configuration that made it a 12:1 compression ratio and was significantly lighter. I will give you that I am not an engineer but I am struggling as to how a piston of the same dimensions (which includes weight) could possibly do this.

So the fear seems to be that somehow JE is "sneaking past" a performance enhancing part. Your lack of faith in the ability of the CRB and the SCCA to evaluate something so blatant is concerning. I suppose the reasonable response would be to go to a different sanctioning body where you can have rules that are not dependent on the SCCA.

Eric Little

[Bernard Bradpiece]

Eric,
That is a disingenuous response. Todd has claimed that the engine builder dealing with JE on this is the same builder who blatantly had Jay's pistons copied with all Jay's markings but different design that significantly increased power but was undetectable without a full strip and measure.

That is information worth knowing when evaluating the proposal to SCCA and you simply ignored the issue.

So confirm or deny. Not hard.

BB

[helipilot04]

Ok Mike I will go there but only with facts and no speculation to protect myself from the lawyers in the game. Eric’s engine builder is the same SoCal engine builder whose name is on CP build sheets for around 20 sets of pistons that fit the 1600 cc Ford Kent engine but are of various configuration that would not be legal for formula ford. Don’t know what those pistons were used for, or where they are today. This same engine builder at one time also had Manley stainless steel valves in his shop where FF engines were being built configured to fit the ford head but in a configuration that did not meet the SCCA requirement at the time. I personally witnessed these valves but have no idea if this is the same valve they are talking about now. Todd

One last time. The piston, as presented by JE, is of the same dimensions as the presently approved pistons. I have been told that one of the (now growing) number of illegal sets was a configuration that made it a 12:1 compression ratio and was significantly lighter. I will give you that I am not an engineer but I am struggling as to how a piston of the same dimensions (which includes weight) could possibly do this.

So the fear seems to be that somehow JE is "sneaking past" a performance enhancing part. Your lack of faith in the ability of the CRB and the SCCA to evaluate something so blatant is concerning. I suppose the reasonable response would be to go to a different sanctioning body where you can have rules that are not dependent on the SCCA.

Eric Little

Eric, I don't know you personally. I do have skin in the game tho and this whole post dosen't make me very happy with FF.
I think your missing the real issue..

I will just edit this and say that I am writing the crb and will not be endorsing this proposal.


-Bob