Rewrite of Solo Vee Rules

MBillings
Posts: 76
Joined: July 7th, 2006, 11:00 am

Rewrite of Solo Vee Rules

Post by MBillings »

I have completed a first-pass rewrite of the Solo Vee rules and I would like others to take a look at them to see what I've missed, should not have changed or eliminated, and/or what's confusing. I tried to upload the Word file but this site would not let me. So, if you'd like to take a look at the rule set and offer your opinion, please email me at fmod9@msn.com.

Johnny Billingsley has already looked at them and asked about the inclusion of the allowance for a deep sump in Solo Vee. I explained to him, and offer to all, that this is a rewrite of the 2011 rules. I will add updates from "Fast Tracks" adopted throughout 2011 to the 2012 Rule Book.

Feel free to email me.

cheers,

Mike Billings
77fmod
Posts: 327
Joined: July 27th, 2006, 10:20 am

Re: Rewrite of Solo Vee Rules

Post by 77fmod »

Carification...

Mike,
I was stating that I thought the F1st guys were already running a Dry Sumo and that it is not allowable in our rules..

I would like to see the sand seals added as "Strongly recommended" in the rules.. i Added one during my rebuild and it has not leaked a drop os oil so far..

Best regards,
MBillings
Posts: 76
Joined: July 7th, 2006, 11:00 am

Re: Rewrite of Solo Vee Rules

Post by MBillings »

The Modified Advisory Committee is struggling with the requests made by some of the Solo Vee folks. Requests have been made to move to C/Mod, allow more horsepower (compression, heads, dual carburetors), start a new class...

I'd like to know what the "active" Solo Vee folks think. I'm representing the Solo Vee as an inexpensive way to go Mod car racing. Lots of changes to the car inorder to make it competitive with the F500's will change that. I don't believe strapping on another 25-30 horsepower makes the two cars competitive. Spending lots of money might get the two cars closer, but it could be LOTS of money...and there goes the inexpensive Mod car.

Creating a Vee class may be a great solution (I don't know what the SEB would say), but it's an idea. The problem, however, is I don't believe the Solo Vee folks can get 17 cars to Nationals. I know the SEB will want to follow the rules about creating a new class and that means numbers of cars.

So, what do you propose? The MAC is running out of ideas!

Mike
RFickes
Posts: 35
Joined: March 13th, 2010, 1:26 pm

Re: Rewrite of Solo Vee Rules

Post by RFickes »

I have written the SEB and suggested the changes you mentioned. And I also agree with your conclusions. Adding an extra 25 to 30 hp would help,but it still does not address the shifting and other inherent issues with the F500s that gives them a significant advantage. As far as getting enough solo vees to form a new class, which I suggested be called Vee Mod, I don't see that there are enough of our cars running at the current time. IMHO, I feel that the most viable option is to leave the rules alone and move us to CM. Looking at the GCR specs for the Formula Ford I don't see that they have any strong advantage over us. In fact on paper they might be at a slight disadvantage in the tire width and weight department.
I do think that we as a group need to come to a general consensus and petition the SEB for a change.
Richard
MBillings
Posts: 76
Joined: July 7th, 2006, 11:00 am

Re: Rewrite of Solo Vee Rules

Post by MBillings »

Here's a new thought...have you all (current Solo Vee owners) considered moving the cars back to (road race) Formula Vees and try to get more cars to join you. With no modifications required to the Formula Vee inorder to be competitive, you might be able to fill a class.

Just a thought,
Mike
Vernon Maxey
Posts: 68
Joined: August 15th, 2006, 9:14 pm

Re: Rewrite of Solo Vee Rules

Post by Vernon Maxey »

Mike,there would be a problem with going back to Formula Vee road racing rule set. Some of us have put almost all of the modifications on our Vees to try to be competitive with the 500s. We would have to take all those Mods off. Money down the drain. Not good.
As you all know, the F600s are trying to develope there cars, they shift, maybe we could start a new class with them?
As for adding new Mods to our Vees, the 500 guys would not be very happy with that or at least some would not like it.
In fact they are not very happy with the 600 guys because of the differences in perfomence and trying to reach pairity.
I think the 600s would fit well with us.
What do you all think? Just a wild thought.
Darth Vee
vreihen
Posts: 579
Joined: August 5th, 2006, 9:39 pm

Re: Rewrite of Solo Vee Rules

Post by vreihen »

Vernon Maxey wrote:I think the 600s would fit well with us.
What do you all think? Just a wild thought.
My $0.02 is that we should use the words "automobile-derived drivetrain" to compare apples to apples. In terms of weight and size, a Solo Vee is closer to a Formula Ford than it ever will be to a F-500, and the reason is because both formulas are based on automobile-derived drivetrains. The snowmobile-derived F-500 and motorcycle-derived F-600 will surely both be lighter/smaller than a Solo Vee even after those classes work out their own parity issues, leaving us stuck again with the porker in the class. Give Solo Vees parity allowances to match the current C-Mod crowd, because it is the only place where a Solo Vee has a chance of being on equal footing.....
bill_browne
Posts: 24
Joined: March 24th, 2008, 2:14 pm

Re: Rewrite of Solo Vee Rules

Post by bill_browne »

MBillings wrote:Here's a new thought...have you all (current Solo Vee owners) considered moving the cars back to (road race) Formula Vees and try to get more cars to join you. With no modifications required to the Formula Vee inorder to be competitive, you might be able to fill a class.

Just a thought,
Mike
Mike, I see where you are trying to go with this. But most guys that I know of who can afford to road race can afford a separate car for autocross...and they do because the setups are so radically different. And a car set up to road race is a real dog and no fun to drive at an autocross. I know because I'm still trying to get the road race out of my car and get the autocross in.

Bill
Vernon Maxey
Posts: 68
Joined: August 15th, 2006, 9:14 pm

Re: Rewrite of Solo Vee Rules

Post by Vernon Maxey »

vreihen, what would those parity allowances be?
MBillings
Posts: 76
Joined: July 7th, 2006, 11:00 am

Re: Rewrite of Solo Vee Rules

Post by MBillings »

A couple of comments in response to others...

The idea behind the back to basics (Formula Vee) is there are more of these cars than Solo Vees. I totally understand the reluctance to take off expensive modifications to get back to the road race cars, but moving to "stock" Formula Vees was a suggestion aimed at attracting enough cars to make a separate class. Remember, we're thinking out loud here.

As to moving to C/Mod...yes the Formula Ford tends to be slower than the F500 guys (on tighter courses), but having owned a Solo Vee and currently driving a FFord, I don't think a move to C/Mod solves the problem. It might get you closer to a trophy, but I don't think it would get you one.

The F600 might work if the F600 guys had to carry a lot of weight. But, the problem with F600 is there are even fewer of them than active Solo Vees. It would take a while to get enough cars to create a class.

Finally, the MAC is currently soliciting input on additional modifications you feel would make the Solo Vee more competitive with the F500. If you feel this is the direction to take, I encourage you to submit suggestions. If you feel reclassing is the solution, please propose that, instead. But, please be realistic. A new Solo Vee (even combined with other cars) class will not work unless there are sufficient cars to fill the class.

I'm on your side, but I don't have a great solution at this time.

Mike
bill_browne
Posts: 24
Joined: March 24th, 2008, 2:14 pm

Re: Rewrite of Solo Vee Rules

Post by bill_browne »

I agree with Mike that a move to C Mod isn't going to cure the problem. I don't think you could ever get a vee suspension to work as well as a FF. If you could, that's what they'd be using.

I also agree that creating Vee Mod is not going to happen if there aren't enough cars to fill the class, even though it seems like the SCCA's fix for everything is to create a new class.

I don't like the idea of allowing Vees more and more power. Horse power costs money, and Vees are supposed to be cheap. Autocross is supposed to be about car handling and driver skill, taking horsepower out of the equation. How much HP would it take to level the field? 10? 30? 100? Only so much that an aircooled 4 banger can take.

I don't see much more room in the rules to allow for handling upgrades, other than throw the front beam away and install double A arms or change the gearbox to Hewland and get rid of the swing axle. But that kinda makes it not a vee anymore.

My solution? Give the 500's a weight penalty. Easy, cheap, and will aggravate the snow blowers, which is what we like to do anyway, isn't it?

Like everyone else here, my 2 cents.
Vernon Maxey
Posts: 68
Joined: August 15th, 2006, 9:14 pm

Re: Rewrite of Solo Vee Rules

Post by Vernon Maxey »

How about Ground Effects or Wings? Bob Q. and I talked about that at Nationals last year.
The idea about adding weight to the 500s have been kicked around and they say they can't add any weight because of their suspension.
They are already trying to add the 600s to the class. Their trying to have the performance balanced between the two.
I have added ground effects to my Vee for this next year and limited slip. The only thing I have not added to the Vee is Ball joint front end.
I'd say wings, how bout that?
vreihen
Posts: 579
Joined: August 5th, 2006, 9:39 pm

Re: Rewrite of Solo Vee Rules

Post by vreihen »

Vernon Maxey wrote:vreihen, what would those parity allowances be?
Equal power-to-weight between the Vee and FF? Leave the open wheels/tires on the Vee to make up for the swing axle and beam? I'm not on my regular computer to access the rulebook, but the only way that I see the Vee getting parity in Mod is to class it against something derived from an automobile. Oh, and as Mr. Trier has pointed out, the Solo Vee is the only non-GCR formula, so making the other cars change isn't likely to fly.....
bill_browne
Posts: 24
Joined: March 24th, 2008, 2:14 pm

Re: Rewrite of Solo Vee Rules

Post by bill_browne »

Solo Vee is the only non-GCR formula
There are other non-GCR formula cars. They run in A Mod.

I'm curious as to their reasoning why weight can't be added to an F500.
RFickes
Posts: 35
Joined: March 13th, 2010, 1:26 pm

Re: Rewrite of Solo Vee Rules

Post by RFickes »

Now there is a good idea. Blow through turbo (200+hp) and wings = AM :lol: I like that.
qreshadow
Posts: 71
Joined: August 31st, 2008, 11:36 am

Re: Rewrite of Solo Vee Rules

Post by qreshadow »

bill_browne wrote: My solution? Give the 500's a weight penalty. Easy, cheap, and will aggravate the snow blowers, which is what we like to do anyway, isn't it?
We've been through this many times before. You can't add more weight to a 500 because the chassis' simply can't take it. There is no suspension to speak of to absorb the competition vigors placed upon these chassis' and and chassis' are cracking now with the weight they have to carry. Adding weight after a while becomes a safety factor.

The 600 proposal is being fought tooth and nail in the racing ranks and is not a very popular addition to F5 if you poll the folks currently in the class and I suspect in Solo either. Parity issues abound and trying to make a 600 MC engined gear box car comparable with a 2 cycle CVT driven car is very problematic.

In Solo, we have enough problems trying to make a Solo Vee competitive with a 500 now and we don't need a MC engined car included in the mix. Although I favor just about any improvements in Solo Vees that will make them competitive against a 500, I really don't think you guys ought to rehash this old weight issue :roll: .

Of course, you can always run A Mod if that is your choice. Afterall, that class isn't governed by the GCR as you stated :lol: .
vreihen
Posts: 579
Joined: August 5th, 2006, 9:39 pm

Re: Rewrite of Solo Vee Rules

Post by vreihen »

RFickes wrote:Now there is a good idea. Blow through turbo (200+hp) and wings = AM :lol: I like that.
...and you'll *still* be cursing snowmobile-powered competitors at the end of the day! :lol:

Several years ago, I was at a Solo event where Formula Junior had FTD. Narrow width and miniscule weight mean just as much as horsepower at an autocross. With the top cars in A-Mod having to ballast to hit 900 pounds with the driver and running pretty close to minimum width, you'll still be looking at the same problems that make the F-500 superior to the Solo Vee in F-Mod. C-Mod is the only place where the Solo Vee can ever hope to find parity, since both are open-wheel formulas based on automobile-derived drivetrains.

Of course, don't let me stop you from going to A-Mod. That's where my next cone-killer will be running.....
bill_browne
Posts: 24
Joined: March 24th, 2008, 2:14 pm

Re: Rewrite of Solo Vee Rules

Post by bill_browne »

Of course, you can always run A Mod if that is your choice. Afterall, that class isn't governed by the GCR as you stated .
Of course, don't let me stop you from going to A-Mod. That's where my next cone-killer will be running.....
I would like one, or both of you, to explain to me how me pointing out the inaccuracy of the statement "Solo Vee is the only non-GCR formula car" equates to "I want to run in A-Mod".
qreshadow
Posts: 71
Joined: August 31st, 2008, 11:36 am

Re: Rewrite of Solo Vee Rules

Post by qreshadow »

bill_browne wrote:
Of course, you can always run A Mod if that is your choice. After all, that class isn't governed by the GCR as you stated .
Of course, don't let me stop you from going to A-Mod. That's where my next cone-killer will be running.....
I would like one, or both of you, to explain to me how me pointing out the inaccuracy of the statement "Solo Vee is the only non-GCR formula car" equates to "I want to run in A-Mod".
The statement made about the Solo Vee not being governed by the GCR and "....is the only non-GCR formula car" may be thought as real world accurate but is not precisely correct as the Solo Vee has, as it's base, a GCR FV. If the CRB/BOD changed the rules governing FV in the GCR, it would/could impact a Solo Vee. The Solo Vee rules may be a far stretch from a FV but they are still connected by a razor thin umbilical cord :lol: .

A Mod is a catch-all, run what you brung class and that is why there are very few rules governing a car's construction. If you want to split hairs, A Mods are considered "Specials", not formula cars, sports racers, or what have you. I can't think of any type car right now that couldn't run A Mod if the owner wished to play in that sandbox 8) .

The statements made by Vreihen and I were made tongue-in-cheek Bill. To bring up the fact that A Mod is a non-GCR class adds nothing realistic to this discussion and I doubt is news to anybody on this forum. I don't think anyone would consider running a Vee in A Mod but if that were your choice ........ :lol:
vreihen
Posts: 579
Joined: August 5th, 2006, 9:39 pm

Re: Rewrite of Solo Vee Rules

Post by vreihen »

qreshadow wrote:I don't think anyone would consider running a Vee in A Mod but if that were your choice ........ :lol:
2006 PSCC A-Mod Season Champion, in my Vee. :lol: ===>

Attendance trophy aside, the problem with Formula cars in A-Mod is that they always seem to be bigger/heavier than the purpose-built Specials that dominate the class at the national level. Not saying that you can't have fun, but you'll find yourself chasing a snowmobile with wings because the grass isn't any greener in A-Mod.....
Last edited by vreihen on January 7th, 2012, 1:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
RFickes
Posts: 35
Joined: March 13th, 2010, 1:26 pm

Re: Rewrite of Solo Vee Rules

Post by RFickes »

After rereading all the posts, it seems that there is a general consensus that our best chance to be competitive is to reclassify the solo vee to CM. I have already submitted my letter to the SEB for their consideration. If this move seems best to you, than I encourage you write them also.
Even though a 200+ hp solo vee would be fun to drive, I agree that it would not stand a chance against the custom built AM cars that are running at the Nationals. There is a BM car running in my division and that thing is scary fast. And his total time was about 7 sec off the winning AM car.
My last $.02 . There was a previous thread that suggested that we share our setups and discuss what is working and what is not. I think that this thread is a great idea for saving time and money. I realize the everyone's car is different but there are also a great deal of similarities.
Thanks, Richard
77fmod
Posts: 327
Joined: July 27th, 2006, 10:20 am

Re: Rewrite of Solo Vee Rules

Post by 77fmod »

Wow! You guys have been busy! I am way behind in this thread so I will just add my comments in a shotgun format.. :P

WIngs add drag and I don't think that we have the power to pull one through the air. Underbody ground effects would be difficult because our cars are so narrow and the development could lead to Computer aided flow dynamics and we are taking expensive at that level.

I would like the heads of the 1915 be allowed bigger valves and an increase in compression. I will say that even though my last show at nationals was a big freaking disaster. (Sidebar: Aside from the oiling issues, I later discover that the Excel formula for my tow setting measurements was flawed and they were completely screwed up on the right side.)

Going back to a roadrace stock setup? I have made all the last improvements to my car at considerable expense and would object to that type of knee jerk rule change. As I have stated before, except for the guys out of New York last year, I think that we are getting very close to compete against them. On that note, I can't imagine why no one protested those guys unless they the front runners are ALL somewhat out of spec... How can a couple of no-names show up and crush the field by over a second a day? LOL! Too ridiculous for words...

And again, please explain to me how it is that even though we got all the last upgrades, the F500's have managed to step it up enough to stay ahead of us.. QRESHADOW?

Give me the compression and the valves and I will kick some butt!

Johnny B.
77fmod
Posts: 327
Joined: July 27th, 2006, 10:20 am

Re: Rewrite of Solo Vee Rules

Post by 77fmod »

Okay... I would give up the valve size but remove the "unshrouding of the valves is not allowed" provision... However, 10.5:1 would be a good start and reduce the flywheel weight.. Currently 12 lbs. I have no idea what the lower limit is but I will look into it..

More later..

JGB
77fmod
Posts: 327
Joined: July 27th, 2006, 10:20 am

Re: Rewrite of Solo Vee Rules

Post by 77fmod »

Okay.. After some quick investigation, I have learned that there are cars out there running 8 lb. flywheels. Therefore, I would also suggest that we are allowed a minimum weight of 8 lbs for the flywheel.
Now I will look into clutch packs...
Bear with me.. I told you it would be a shotgun approach..

JGB
qreshadow
Posts: 71
Joined: August 31st, 2008, 11:36 am

Re: Rewrite of Solo Vee Rules

Post by qreshadow »

"And again, please explain to me how it is that even though we got all the last upgrades, the F500's have managed to step it up enough to stay ahead of us.. QRESHADOW?"



Well Johnny..... they obviously are all cheaters, right? :roll: .
Post Reply