Page 1 of 1

2011 Rule Change

PostPosted: September 10th, 2010, 10:23 pm
by Lynn
Expect bolt on valve covers to be mandatory for 2011. This will be a high priority for the next SEB meeting and the number one priority for the MAC.

Personally, I think the problem can be solved by banning leading arm suspensions.

FYI, the last sentence is a joke. The first two sentences are 100% accurate.

Re: 2011 Rule Change

PostPosted: September 11th, 2010, 4:46 pm
by fezzic181
If someone can't make the stock valve covers with bails stay on their car and not leak then bolts aren't going to help them.

Bah well now I feel dumb. Not recalling this was a solo change and that you might have an assistant out there helping you take said valve covers off the car changes things all up.

Re: 2011 Rule Change

PostPosted: September 11th, 2010, 6:37 pm
by vreihen
fezzic181 wrote:If someone can't make the stock valve covers with bails stay on their car and not leak then bolts aren't going to help them.

My take based on Lynn's joke about leading arm suspensions was that the motivation for this "emergency" rule change was that someone oiled the course (possibly in Lincoln?) after a cone impact, but that would just be my guess. Has anyone ever seen a cone hit that knocked a non-bolted valve cover loose?????

Re: 2011 Rule Change

PostPosted: September 11th, 2010, 11:09 pm
by Lynn
The course was oiled down each day by the same driver after hitting cones and knocking off the valve cover. The bails on the valve covers were safety wired and cable tied on the second day but it still came off. The first day about a third of the course was oiled. The second day, almost all the course was oiled and it was wet also. It took hours to clean up. The F500 guys were really, really pissed. Three of them asked me to write proposed wording to send to the SEB and MAC regarding a rule change. That won't be necessary. Tina Reeves, chair of the SEB, has this on her personal agenda. The good news is that the third runs were restarted from the beginning and the track dried out after being cleaned up. The bad news is that Vern and Bob Q with their low numbers went out before it got really dry. F500 second drivers had almost dry conditions.

I know the driver of the car felt bad about what happened, and it was really bad luck that it happened to him twice.

The bail type valve covers leak less than the bolt ons. And the EMPI style bolt ons with the rubber seals are terrible. Avoid them.

Re: 2011 Rule Change

PostPosted: September 12th, 2010, 12:05 pm
by vreihen
Lynn wrote:The F500 guys were really, really pissed.

Funny how quickly they forget about the Finger Lakes Tour event a few months ago, where 67% of the snowmobiles present had to be towed from the course to impound due to mechanicals during their runs.

And the EMPI style bolt ons with the rubber seals are terrible. Avoid them.

Are there two different types of EMPI covers? My Vee came with finned covers that *don't* say EMPI on them, but a quick web search shows identical ones being sold in EMPI packaging. Then, there's the ones with EMPI's name cast into the cover. Are they both bad, or just the one with the EMPI logo cast into it? Just curious, since the valve covers are the only thing on my Vee that *didn't* leak before I tore it down, and now you have me wondering if I'm going to have problems with the valve covers when I fire it up? Did you put a layer of oil on the rubber seals before bolting them on?????

Re: 2011 Rule Change

PostPosted: September 12th, 2010, 1:07 pm
by Lynn
The covers with EMPI cast into them use rubber seals which slip over the covers. These leak like a sieve.

These are said to work much better.


Re: 2011 Rule Change

PostPosted: September 12th, 2010, 3:08 pm
by vreihen
Thanks for the clarification, Lynn. I have the bottom ones, and they use rubber gaskets under the flange just like the factory ones. I see from the picture that you posted that the EMPI-logo covers don't have a flange, and use a slotted gasket over the edge of the cover to make the seal. No wonder it leaks with such a narrow mating surface!

The only other question that I have is whether or not GCR prohibits non-bolted valve covers?????

Re: 2011 Rule Change

PostPosted: September 12th, 2010, 5:19 pm
by dd46637
I have seen bolt ons on Vee's.
Most of us FST drivers use them.
I have 2 engines and use the ones pictured on the bottom. I always use the cork gaskets and glue them in with silicone, then coat the faces and bolt them on and let them sit for a couple of days.
No leaks in 4 years.

Re: 2011 Rule Change

PostPosted: September 12th, 2010, 6:19 pm
by SR Racing
Dave is correct. Those valve covers work fine (these are the bolt ons that we normally sell) with the cork composition gaskets when installed correctly. However there are some empi's running also and they don't seem to have problems. I prefer the cork though.

Re: 2011 Rule Change

PostPosted: September 12th, 2010, 9:48 pm
by Bill_Bonow
Funny, been using the EMPI covers for years in FST and never had a leak. One guy did have one leak after something bounced up and cut the rubber seal, replaced it and no more leak. I have had plenty of trouble over the years with those polished aluminum VC's, mostly in sealing around the bolts. Found there was a huge dimentional difference in how that area was machined from part to part. I think dry sump makes all the difference......nothing up in the covers to leak.

Re: 2011 Rule Change

PostPosted: September 13th, 2010, 1:42 am
by Lynn
I've replaced the rubber gaskets on the EMPI covers several times with torque ranging from finger tight to as tight as I think I can go without stripping the threads. Tighter was somewhat better but the still leak. A lot. And the right side is worse than the left.

Re: 2011 Rule Change

PostPosted: September 20th, 2010, 2:10 pm
by MBillings
I am a member of the MAC (Modified Advisory Committee) and am wondering: how would you like the new rule to read? Shall we specify valve cover gaskets as well as bolt on valve covers?

thanks for your input,
Mike Billings

Re: 2011 Rule Change

PostPosted: September 23rd, 2010, 5:52 pm
by 77fmod
Input from my engine builder is to put seals on the iside of the covers as well as on the outside where the bolts go through and you will not have leaks....
Just FYI..

I think the difference in SOLO as compared to the road racing guys is that we have such violent maneuvers and are generating more than a "G" in lateral acceleration causing the oil to run up the pushrod tubs and up the inside of the covers..

Another thing I would like to state here is that if you have a small leak, Royal Purple will make it about 10 times worse!

I wish I could laugh but am still waiting to wake up from this nightmare....

Re: 2011 Rule Change

PostPosted: October 21st, 2010, 11:51 pm
by Lynn
Per the November Fastrack, bolt on valve covers are now required.

Re: 2011 Rule Change

PostPosted: December 23rd, 2010, 8:15 am
by dd46637
The latest Fastrack says that the bolt on valve cover proposal has been withdrawn in favor of some changes to the tech inspection rules.
And they are now asking for input on allowing dry-sumps.

Re: 2011 Rule Change

PostPosted: December 23rd, 2010, 9:39 am
by Lynn
Yes, that is stupid. I'll ask a MAC member I know why it was withdrawn.

The F500 guys wanted dry sumps to be required for Solo Vees. I sent the letter requesting that they be permitted. I'll have a dry sump whether they are approved or not.

Re: 2011 Rule Change

PostPosted: December 23rd, 2010, 10:58 am
by SR Racing
My input to them:

Please forward my comments onto the proper individuals re: the current Solo January FastTrack

- The following rule change proposals have been recommended by the MAC and are published for member comment:
- In Appendix A, under Modified Class F, section C.2.j, change the sentence “Dry sump systems are prohibited.” to read “Dry sump systems are permitted.” (ref. #2669)

We have done intensive dyno and on track testing of dry sumps in Type One AC/VW engines.

Pros and Cons as pertaining to Solo

ANY formula car (high G corners) should have a dry sump system. No type 1 VW engine case and oiling system can be designed to provide proper lubraication in certain extremes.
A solo car can typically pull more G's and at more rapid changes than a Road Course car.
Better engine protection
Lower operating temperatures
When installed correctly there is far less oil blowby and leaks.

Expense. If the owner does his own work and buys new parts at retail, the cost will be in the $500 area.
A 6 to 7 quart sump tank will be required. This can be a difficult task to find a decent mounting point in some cars.

Comments from our dyno testing and road course track testing.:

With a 2 stage dry sump pump at peak HP, you can expect to see an additional 1.5% to 2% HP over a non-dry sump engine. This is due to lower case pressures providing better ring sealing and less windage loss on track.

The rule should specify that only a 2 stage dry sump mounted at the normal VW oil pump location can be used. (There are at least 3 available manufactures of these.) If the rules don’t' specifiy this it would leave it open for $1000+ multi-stage belt driven drive sumps. That would of course increase cost and HP.

We have tested dry sumps now for 4+ years in the FST Road Racing class. (With dyno and on-track data acquisistion) Oil related engine failures are a thing of the past. By far the biggest visible improvements have been lower operating temps and a lack of oil dripping (blowby) from all over the case. While dyno testing has shown the additional HP, our track times did not show any real improvement that could be attributed to the dry sump system.

I appears that the bolt on valve cover rule was dropped. While tech inspection MIGHT alleviate this requirement, it seems foolish to me. A complete bolt on Valve cover kit is under $40 and can be installed in under an hour. With pancake engines this should be mandatory, inspection or not.

With multiple dynos here and multiple type 1 VW mounted on one most all of the time, we can provide other data if you desire.

Jim Schings
SR Racing Inc.

Re: 2011 Rule Change

PostPosted: December 28th, 2010, 1:56 pm
by 77fmod
I can't imagine what a Tech inspection could have done to prevent the multiple occurences at the Nats. It seems to imply that I was negligent in my preparation of the car. As I have stated in the past, I have never seen a failure like this in the past and I remind you that I used a different bail and had safety wired it from the intake manifold on the second day to prevent another failure.
I can only imagine that it was hit just so as to make it spread and the end to leave the boss at the head.
I will never rely on a wire bail retainer in the future.

I mean seriously, even if you have a dry sump and the valve cover comes off, you will still be pumping oil out the rocker arm push rods.

Another thing that complicated my frustration this year was the fact that my engine assembler had used a self-tapping head stud in the upper rear #3 hole and it was pulling out and leaking oil on the second day. Causing the rain induced oil stream in the grid.

Unbelievably bad luck this year!

Johnny B.