What was the precise focus of the CRB front beam Mods clarification?
Brian
CRB request about front beam Mods
What was the precise focus of the CRB front beam Mods clarification?
Brian
If you're talking about this, yes it would be nice to know what mods they are talking about.
15. #38273 (Matt Clark) Small VW Beam Mod Question
Thank you for your letter. The GCR does not support the modifications to the beam described. The FV rules, GCR section 9.1.1.C.1.B, say that "Formula Vee is a Restricted Class. Therefore, any allowable modifications, changes, or additions are as stated herein. There are no exceptions. IF IN DOUBT, DON’T." The FV rules further state in that section that "[n]o component of the engine, powertrain, front suspension, brakes shall be altered, modified, or substituted unless specifically authorized." The Club Racing Board believes the modifications described fall into this category, whereas the relocation of the steering box as done on the Citation is specifically authorized by GCR section 9.1.1.C.3.A.4.
Reason #1000 why the full contents of all letters should be published...
I'm betting Matt will be happy to clarify the request when he see's this.
What does a Citation, specifically, do with steering box location that other vees aren't allowed ??Originally Posted by CARSHouston
Or am I misreading that statement ?
Glenn
First off, moving the steering box is not prohibited in the rules. There are several FV designs that relocate the steering box.
I can make a good argument that moving the steering box from the stock location and removing the steering mechanism out of the foot box area of the chassis improves the safety of the car in the event of a sever frontal impact. I have a little experience with safety issues as both a driver and a car builder over the last 57 years I have been involved with FV.
Because of the wheel base restrictions in the FV rules, getting a "clean and safe" cockpit is a challenge.
Ed Zink came up with the steering system that I have used ever since. The steering system was first introduced on the Zink Z12. I will bet that someone did it before Zink.
In the interest of transparency, as I always try to do, here is the background of my letter.
I simply had wondered if I could put an extra bracket or so on the beam for attaching things. There was some discussion both in person at the track & on Facebook, and it seemed that people viewed them as legal, as there is no performance advantage. Plus the fact people were already doing essentially what I was asking. We can talk about it all we want online, but until the CRB rules... we do not know. So I wrote the CRB.
John Petillo then reached out via email to talk about it, I explained a bit more & gave him the below link to the Facebook discussion, and that was it.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/form...1ZMQDdwbEq%2F#
They totally missed my point about the Citation steering box, as I was not referring to relocating the box... I was referring to the fact they are allowed to weld things on the beam, which per their reply to me, should not be legal. I guess "there are no exceptions" comes with exceptions somehow.
Last edited by Matt Clark; 06.18.25 at 12:47 PM. Reason: added pic
~Matt Clark| RTJ-02 FV #92 | My YouTube Onboard Videos (helmet cam)
The Citation is an interesting situation. As Steve said, people have done things before that were forgotten. People were inverting the steering box and mounting off the beam long before Ed did it, but most of us call that a Womer style now..... (and not D13S.or Legrand..)
The Predator and others like the Citation mounted the pivot to the rockers on the chassis instead of the beam.
I think you could clamp the pivot part to the beam, so since fasters are free, and welding is a fastener....there seems to be some tolerance as long as the parts are steering related. And even the beam has been welded to the chassis on some cars.
Once you start welding other things to the beam, than do not relate to steering or beam mounting, it looks like that is where they draw the line.
I wish there was a record of how things got approved in the past. The why, not just the what.
Then the question is, do we want to change a rule to allow something? Here it gets tricky. For a major rules change to any class, I would like to see a fixed review period - say 6 months, and after that have a vote of the current drivers. This is tough without knowing who these drivers are.....So if Matt wants to move this forward under the current rules procedure, he can request a rules change, rather than a clarification, get a majority of drivers to support it, convince the CRB, and then the BOD.
ChrisZ
Thanks for the compliment but I just copied the idea off of a D13 just like Caldwell did it. Now get back to the actual request by Matt. If you read the rules which I haven't since they don't seem to send them out with my licenses renewal anymore. Which by the way, the rain light BS was the final nail in the coffin and I quite racing due to that and left my license run out.
Remember that statement if it doesn't say you can then you can't? Well welding the arms to the beam for the Citation style steering system is not allowed. I never saw where it said it was specifically mentioned, which makes it what? Illegal! sorry Larry, but I never saw that in the rules and this allowing interpretations doesn't cut it.
You can now install ride height adjusters, notice plural, WTF! Since no one runs two springs why plural.
I think two many people justify what they think is an advantage, which most times isn't, just they think it is. So rules creep has many years ago sent this class into a downward spiral that seems to be picking up speed. Even with the third largest open wheeled car count the national office saw fit to eliminate the group so they can have more, wait for it, Mazda groups.
I don't understand just what the clubs end game is, but it isn't looking like there ever was one. Just squeeze out the popular old classes in favor of what the kids want. Trouble is the kids don't stay long anymore because when daddy runs out of money or looses interest they are gone off to something else. I have seen this over the years so I know what is lurking in the background.
Ed
Ed - they don't send them out anymore because they are online and updated every month. Just like manuals have disappeared, magazines are going digital (no more SportsCar). Credit card statements are online, and maybe soon - no cash. I thought QR codes died 10 years ago, until reading them became a standard feature on every cell phone. Now it is QR all over the place. We are dinosaurs and the asteroid has hit - we have to evolve as much as we can, and I admit, sometimes it is hard to get out of bed in the morning...
That is my issue - there was a decision to allow it at one point - but the reason has been lost - most of the time they don't tell you "why" a decision has been made. Too bad VeeLines stopped around 1972 and I only did my Newsletter for 6 years in the 90's. We both dove in to the "why" of rules changes. It might double the size of the rules (which is why printing will be prohibitively expensive) but every rule should have a footnote and be documented with the reason for the rule and "why" every change. If not then they are just relying on our memories, and mine is starting to misremember.
I was all for the adjusters as bending the springs was a pain, (even did a video on it), but then certain cars - like the Citation - you could not put one on - hence the double adjusters on one beam. Your right - some think it is an advantage so now we have them on many more cars. Again - somewhere it was decided and there should be backup (Where is today's Frank Schultheis..)
BTW - the Mazda stuff is just part of life - when FV came out in the 60's, WE were the Miatas of today. The guys with the Jags, Aston Martins, expensive Formula Jouniors and customized specials wondered, "who were these backyard mechanics and these cheap cars"? FV started the formula revolution and all the classes that followed, like FF and Super Vee. So in a way it is like the pot calling the kettle black.
ChrisZ
Seinfeld "You know how to take the reservation, you just don't know how to hold the reservation. And that's really the most important part of the reservation, the holding. Anybody can just take them!"
Steve Lathrop & Matt Clark:
My question was regarding the CRB response that cited a specific allowance for Citation steering box placement...which, by the way, was an incorrect quote and/or interpretation by that poster. Their response was simply wrong. Citations (and Zinks) have always utilized the actual upper or lower beam)
All Lazers and several others have inverted the steering box & moved it to a cross-member in front of the drivers' knees.
There are also MANY vees that mount the box on a bracket in front of the beam (using the beam's mounting bolts - not welded) Is this legal per SCCA? I havent cracked a GCR in about 25 years.
I believe the main purpose for these is legroom / tall-driver-fit in an otherwise cramped space, which was my reason for installing Citation steering in my Caracal/Lynx-B many years ago (I'm 6'3", 220#).
Anyways...thanks for all the back-n-forth...this is getting interesting.
Glenn
Forgot about the Lazer.
Back in the 80's - starting around 1983 or 84, all formula cars had to be homologated. So the builders of the Lazer, Citation, VDF, Womer, etc., all had to submit information to the SCCA for approval before getting an Homologation certificate (which many of us have).
So these designs had to be approved by Club Racing. If you have a Homologation paper then that implies your car met the rules, at the time, and was legal.
We don't have that now. Now you have to show to the Tech Inspector who issues the log book that you meet the current rules. That could lead to problems if you build a new car and try to stretch the envelope. Or if you have extensively modified a homologated car.
Now the Zink Steering predates the homologation system and so does the D13S. If I am correct, the original rules said the box had to be in the original location. That led to unequal steering links and more interesting interpretations.
If you want to go down that rabbit hole of the origins of FV see https://www.formulavee.us/vee_lines/
ChrisZ
If you want to weld steering system bracketry to the beam then ask for that precisely.
The GCR does not authorize this at this time.
Tech should not need to know anything about FV history to make GCR rulings.
Brian
Last edited by Hardingfv32; 06.19.25 at 5:48 PM.
Brian,
Good to meet you last week.
Totally agree about Tech. With a class that spent 2/3 of its life pre-Internet, and many of the long time Tech guys "retiring", discussions like this at least document some things for the guys to come. What seems clear to us will be clear as mud to someone 3 years from now. Look at what Greg Amy is working on with fire systems and HANS devices - things that affect everyone. Most class rules need addendums (a FAQ?) or else the same question will come up again and again....
ChrisZ
Brings up an interesting point. I have a modified Citation that I am getting ready. The original steering system is gone, but the mounts welded to the beam for them are still there and I am using them to mount a couple of items (brake fluid reservoirs and a pedal stop bracket). Since they seem to be "approved" additions, what does that mean when you change the steering I wonder...
My suggestion, and something I will do from now on, is to submit my request with say, 10 co-signers and their SCCA number.
At worst that means you have shown your proposal to 10 others who might give input.
ChrisZ
Droop stops
I've been adding a bolt to the bump stop horns on my last couple beams.
It says this in the GCR(9.1.1.1.3.A.8): "The rubber portion of the bump stop and any portion or all of the bump stop horn may be removed up to its base at the beam upright."
The next beam I'm building will only have a drilled and tapped hole. So, 100% legal as far as I'm concerned. My current beam has a hole drilled and a nut welded on, the horns had some rust(the rest of the beam was just surface) and not enough meat to make good threads.
Either way, it is legal to remove(drill and tap) any portion of the beam horn. And in my view if a Citation bellcrank system is legal then a little jamb nut certainly is. Nobody has questioned or commented on my beam yet.
Why do I do this? I figure it is better to have droop easily adjustable rather than rely on the Penske$$$$ shocks to do it. When I originally got the car, there were droop rods with washers and rubbers that attached at shock top and bottom. I thought that was a lot of extra stuff creating drag.
This droop bolt makes it easy to set the toe-in reliably. I step on the beam and insert a known spacer which sets the beam at ride height with me in the car. No more ballast to set the front end, I only need it for the rear end.
P.S.: Yes, I know my shocks are "upside down" compared to most others.
P.P.S.: There is no reference anywhere to welding anything onto the beam(Citation bellcrank mounts) so are all Citations with bellcranks technically illegal?
Last edited by DannyPip; 06.20.25 at 9:45 AM.
The CRB reply & GCR section 9.1.1.C.1.B states:
"Therefore, any allowable modifications, changes, or additions are asstated herein. There are no exceptions."
and GCR section 9.1.1.C.3.A.4 that they reference states:
"Relocation of the steering gearbox to any position utilizing an appropriate mounting structure and replacements of the tie rods. Steering damper mount and/or the steering box locating bumps maybe removed."
The Citation steering box has been relocated as allowed. Fine, I agree. Womers & others move the box without welding additional brackets for pieces that are not the steering box. My car also has it moved (same spot as a Womer), without welding brackets for additional components.
So per the CRBs own reply... seems pretty clear to me. No.
Bellcranks are for things other than the steering box itself, which can be very much be argued are a performance advantage due to possible improved geometry. Remember... there are no exceptions.
And do not get me wrong, this was -not- the of point in my letter. I simply used the existing "allowance" as an example of why I thought I would be allowed to put some tabs to mount things more securely & straighter. One of the examples would be small tabs to keep my beam fairings from rotating.
~Matt Clark
Right on, Matt. I don't see where a tab to locate a beam fairing could be considered an advantage. Convenience, certainly.
My droop stop is in a similar vein, more convenience and longevity than performance advantage. You can disassemble the shocks and put spacers in to restrict extension, yes? To do a complete disassembly just to change droop would be a major PIA!
Matt,
The CRB reply & GCR section 9.1.1.C.1.B states:
"Therefore, any allowable modifications, changes, or additions are as stated herein. There are no exceptions."
and that worked so well with manifolds...
"utilizing an appropriate mounting structure "
I suspect that this particular wording makes the addition of the welded on pieces legal. They are a part of the "appropriate mounting structure". That sentence can be taken rather leniently.
I didn't really think about that. So if it is ok to weld or attach anything to the beam that you can say is an appropriate attachment to the beam for whatever reason you deam needed, then that really opens things up.
I always thought that trying to put the Jeannie back in the bottle by allowing the manifold to be enlarged and allow measurements at 4 points around the tube is BS. A go/no go gauge that you rotate around the tube is far easier than allowing someone to pick their spots and then having on going discussions.
Ed
But what if the sentence is not taken leniently? Tech and Stewards need black and white.
This discussion is academic at best. No one is going to protest this subject. Almost no one on this thread is ever going to be subject to any mechanical protest.
Brian
You are not allowed to pick your spots. The use of a go/no go gauge has its own set of issues.
The current rule is BS to you because you do not understand what is required to measure a FV manifold.
Brian
I agree the wording is a problem. That is true of quite a bit of the rules. It is the nature of man to read and interpret...
The discussion may be academic, but it is an interesting one IMO. You started it
Come on Brian, you think that after all of these years in construction and fabricating I don't know how to measure? If the rules says it can not be larger than x dimension then a go no go gauge is easy to operate and use.
Maybe what is at the center of your comment is you are unable to enlarge a tube without distorting it. well I hate to say, that falls under NMFP. I have seen and copied the Australian manifold and who ever produced them did an awesome job and was able to obtain the bent tubing that actually was bent accurately. They also did a fantastic job of fabricating and welding them up. For the price it should have been adopted and let the engine builders re-jet to optimize the engine operation.
Ed
1) As far as I know the only manifolds to actually be measured in the last 2-3 decades were at the Runoff's in post race impound. I do not think that the testing of the manifold at Runoff's impound requires a easy to use proceedure.
2) Again, a lack of understanding behind the manifold rules. No manifold the is etched and balled is going to stay round in use... assuming it was ever round. The current rule had to accommodate this fact of FV life. So the rule was written assuming that the manifold tubing was not round in use.
3) The Australian manifold was not a reliable source. In fact they have not been available for many years in Australia.
Brian
There are currently 8 users browsing this thread. (1 members and 7 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote