Rewrite of Solo Vee Rules

vreihen
Posts: 579
Joined: August 5th, 2006, 9:39 pm

Re: Rewrite of Solo Vee Rules

Post by vreihen »

qreshadow wrote:Well Johnny..... they obviously are all cheaters, right? :roll: .
Never trust anyone who brings a snowmobile to an automobile fight. :lol:

Seriously though, the only fix that I can see in this case of apples versus oranges in F-Mod is to move the Solo Vee to C-Mod, where it will be more like oranges versus tangerines but at least both will be based on automobile-derived drivetrains. As a plus, there won't be the smell of two-stroke exhaust stinking up the grid..... :mrgreen:
77fmod
Posts: 327
Joined: July 27th, 2006, 10:20 am

Re: Rewrite of Solo Vee Rules

Post by 77fmod »

LOL! I knew it.

Okay. I will go along with going to C/mod but I am sure they would not be happy about it.

At this point I am going to suggest a bump in compression and a lighter flywheel as improvements. They are inexpensive and would do wonders for acceleration.

I realize that we will never be as quick through the slaloms as a 500 due to the width but a typical course only has one or two of them. I have my car down to 62" wide and that is only 7" wider than them.

It looks as though we will have a good site to run nearby this year and I should be able to get some good seat time and be ready for nationals again.

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

Re: Rewrite of Solo Vee Rules

Post by qreshadow »

Seriously Johnny, I would think that that winning car would have come under intense scrutiny but I wasn't there so I have no idea if it did or didn't. Those brothers are not new to F Mod, just that car.

On other forums, they are trying to direct attention to their diffuser and their sports car nose as the reason they are so fast but like all "magicians", you can't be looking at what they want you to look at :lol: . Diffusers and sports car noses....common sense causes me not believe it gave them the margins they won with, but I bet this year's National will see some other 500s with the same setup just in case they did find the "holy grail" in F Mod :lol: :lol: .

I see no reasonable resistance to moving the Solo Vee to C Mod if that is what you guys truely want. If you think that is a better choice for your cars, then by all means ask the SEB to allow that move.

If you want more mod allowances, whether you move or not, then I'd suggest you all speak with one voice and provide a united front instead of one or two of you asking for this or that. That's what this forum is all about.

Just sayin' 8)
Vernon Maxey
Posts: 68
Joined: August 15th, 2006, 9:14 pm

Re: Rewrite of Solo Vee Rules

Post by Vernon Maxey »

Hi Guys,
Does anyone know the power to weight ratio of a CM? From what I have gathered from looking at the 500 website, they are running close to a 7.5lbs to 1hp. What are we running? I know that I'm running, 10lbs to 1hp. What does that tell you? More HP? I think that would help. What do you all think?
Darth Vee #4
Lynn
Posts: 592
Joined: June 24th, 2006, 11:15 pm

Re: Rewrite of Solo Vee Rules

Post by Lynn »

A top FF Kent road race engine is 124 hp at the crank. Most road racers are around 120. I'd guess that most of the CM Fords are a bit less. FF minimum weight is 1100 lbs with driver.
69 Beach Solo Vee, #65 FM

85 Lynx B Solo Vee

71 Zink C4 Solo Vee
qreshadow
Posts: 71
Joined: August 31st, 2008, 11:36 am

Re: Rewrite of Solo Vee Rules

Post by qreshadow »

I have been told, a top running 493, 494, or 593 Rotax powered F500 jetted properly puts out about 102-105 HP at the crank. However, if the CVT clutches are not tuned properly, things can vary HP delivered to the wheels quite a bit and those crank figures may not translate to a real world accurate gage of performance at the wheels when comparing crank HP with a gearbox where HP transmittal to the wheels is more finite. The percentage loss at the wheels could be greater with a CVT then a gearbox.

So, although it might be fun exercise to compare crank HP of a Solo Vee and an F500, that does not mean that those figures tell a perfectly accurate story :lol: .

That being said, and as I stated before, I'm all for getting Vees competitive in either FM or CM.
vreihen
Posts: 579
Joined: August 5th, 2006, 9:39 pm

Re: Rewrite of Solo Vee Rules

Post by vreihen »

Lynn wrote:A top FF Kent road race engine is 124 hp at the crank. Most road racers are around 120. I'd guess that most of the CM Fords are a bit less. FF minimum weight is 1100 lbs with driver.
1100 lbs / 124 hp = 8.87 lbs/hp
Vernon Maxey
Posts: 68
Joined: August 15th, 2006, 9:14 pm

Re: Rewrite of Solo Vee Rules

Post by Vernon Maxey »

Just sent my letter to the SEB, lets move to CM.
77fmod
Posts: 327
Joined: July 27th, 2006, 10:20 am

Re: Rewrite of Solo Vee Rules

Post by 77fmod »

I'm torn... I really want to be able to get on top of those 500's but maybe a move to C/Mod might be a good one. You have to consider that the top running 500's are beating them consistently.. I was at a test event last year before all my troubles and I was running comparable to Don Elzinga. It was just a calculation though as he was leaving out a short lalom in order to amke a tight corner. I wasn't and was just a second behind.. I suppose I will add my voice to the request for class change.

Hey, what is that email address again. My computer crashed this winter and I no longer have it..

Until later,

Johnny B.
qreshadow
Posts: 71
Joined: August 31st, 2008, 11:36 am

Re: Rewrite of Solo Vee Rules

Post by qreshadow »

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

Re: Rewrite of Solo Vee Rules

Post by 77fmod »

Thanks much for the address.... I believe since we do not know whether a move to C/Mod would be allowed, we should continue to discuss and submit our suggestions to improve our cars to run against the 500's..

Anyone up for it? How many are even visiting any longer?

Anyway, after finding some pics of that winning car last year, I can honestly say that the nose did not seem to solve the push in the car and the diffser has to be totally inefficient. Seems to me that those guys may have st used those attempts at arrow to disguise a monster motor..

I'll tell you one thing, if I get there thi year I will be putting the money down to see the guts of that thing! Ive done it before and was proven wrong but if someone doesn't step up now and then... Well, let's just say that there is a lot of power untapped in our motors.... For Christ's sake, a roadracer has to tear down after any major win... LOL! Okay, Okay. I'll get off the soapbox...

C'mon.. Let's hear all the ideas..
Vernon Maxey
Posts: 68
Joined: August 15th, 2006, 9:14 pm

Re: Rewrite of Solo Vee Rules

Post by Vernon Maxey »

How about bolting on two webers on the 1915 ?
qreshadow
Posts: 71
Joined: August 31st, 2008, 11:36 am

Re: Rewrite of Solo Vee Rules

Post by qreshadow »

77fmod wrote: Anyway, after finding some pics of that winning car last year, I can honestly say that the nose did not seem to solve the push in the car and the diffser has to be totally inefficient. Seems to me that those guys may have st used those attempts at arrow to disguise a monster motor.
Well......it's about time someone questioned the viability of those items 8). You know what magicians do don't you? They get you to look at their right hand while they do things with their left :lol:.

The theory is correct down to the exhaust pointing down onto the diffuser, 'cept all those goodies do not come close to making a 2 1/2 second lead :roll: If you're looking, look somewhere else :lol: .
RFickes
Posts: 35
Joined: March 13th, 2010, 1:26 pm

Re: Rewrite of Solo Vee Rules

Post by RFickes »

I agree with Vernon. Twin Webers would be a good first step if we can not change to Cmod. I would also like to see the SEB allow us to up the compression to 10:1. But since there are so few of us let's ALL start writing those letters to the SEB.
Thanks, Richard
RFickes
Posts: 35
Joined: March 13th, 2010, 1:26 pm

Re: Rewrite of Solo Vee Rules

Post by RFickes »

One last thought (I had a senior moment)..........I would also like to see the SEB allow a the 1915 engines to use the heads with 40 x 35.5 valves. I am having trouble finding good 39x32 heads and the 40x35.5 heads are readly available and cheaper.
Thanks again. Richard
Vernon Maxey
Posts: 68
Joined: August 15th, 2006, 9:14 pm

Re: Rewrite of Solo Vee Rules

Post by Vernon Maxey »

Sent my recomendation in for two webers. The heads would be good too.
vreihen
Posts: 579
Joined: August 5th, 2006, 9:39 pm

Re: Rewrite of Solo Vee Rules

Post by vreihen »

77fmod wrote:I'll tell you one thing, if I get there thi year I will be putting the money down to see the guts of that thing! Ive done it before and was proven wrong but if someone doesn't step up now and then...
I thought that I read someplace (SCCAforums?) that they were selling the bare frame of that car? If I wasn't cracking up or confusing it with another car, you may never get the chance to see it in person.....
qreshadow
Posts: 71
Joined: August 31st, 2008, 11:36 am

Re: Rewrite of Solo Vee Rules

Post by qreshadow »

vreihen wrote:
77fmod wrote:I'll tell you one thing, if I get there thi year I will be putting the money down to see the guts of that thing! Ive done it before and was proven wrong but if someone doesn't step up now and then...
I thought that I read someplace (SCCAforums?) that they were selling the bare frame of that car? If I wasn't cracking up or confusing it with another car, you may never get the chance to see it in person.....
Yes, they are selling the bare frame. So, you might ask, why might they be doing that and not sell the entire car? Well, if I was a betting person, I would put my money down on a new chassis with a 1 inch tunnel down the middle. \

The rules allow for a 1 inch deviation in the belly pan from, basically, any two points along that belly pan and some enterprising folks have thought about building a tunnel for their existing cars by adding a false bottom. But if you build a frame from scratch, it is much better to put that tunnel up into the car by recessing it in the frame.

Anyway, that's my guess as to the question of why :mrgreen: .
Lynn
Posts: 592
Joined: June 24th, 2006, 11:15 pm

Re: Rewrite of Solo Vee Rules

Post by Lynn »

Twin carbs without the big valves won't work that well. And instead of twin carbs, the request should be for this.
69 Beach Solo Vee, #65 FM

85 Lynx B Solo Vee

71 Zink C4 Solo Vee
Vernon Maxey
Posts: 68
Joined: August 15th, 2006, 9:14 pm

Re: Rewrite of Solo Vee Rules

Post by Vernon Maxey »

Twin carbs will work, but they will work better with bigger valves.
Kind of expensive injection system, don't you think?
jtcolegrove
Posts: 4
Joined: February 3rd, 2012, 4:14 pm

Re: Rewrite of Solo Vee Rules

Post by jtcolegrove »

77fmod wrote: Anyway, after finding some pics of that winning car last year, I can honestly say that the nose did not seem to solve the push in the car and the diffser has to be totally inefficient. Seems to me that those guys may have st used those attempts at arrow to disguise a monster motor..
Joseph Hazelwood,

I really do get a big kick out of other people telling me what does and doesn't work on my car...
I can honestly say that the nose did not seem to solve the push in the car
Understeer??? What understeer?? Check out our youtube vids.... no understeer there. Think whatever you want, you'll never drive the car so you'll never actually know. And what position are you in to "honestly say the nose didn't solve the push in the car" ??
Seems to me that those guys may have st used those attempts at arrow to disguise a monster motor..
You weren't at nationals, you've never seen it in person. My car was VERY highly scrutinized by the entire class during impound, especially on day two. Nobody lodged a protest. Quite a few of our competitors hung out with us under our tent through the course of the week, and had an opportunity to check our car out.
I'll tell you one thing, if I get there thi year I will be putting the money down to see the guts of that thing! Ive done it before and was proven wrong but if someone doesn't step up now and then...
You've done it before and were proven wrong.... why does that not surprise me? Is everyone that beats you a cheater?? At any rate, you'll have the opportunity next year, if you decide to show up. I would love nothing more than for you to pay for a real engine builder rebuild my motor.
Last edited by jtcolegrove on February 16th, 2012, 6:55 pm, edited 2 times in total.
jtcolegrove
Posts: 4
Joined: February 3rd, 2012, 4:14 pm

Re: Rewrite of Solo Vee Rules

Post by jtcolegrove »

qreshadow wrote: Yes, they are selling the bare frame. So, you might ask, why might they be doing that and not sell the entire car? Well, if I was a betting person, I would put my money down on a new chassis with a 1 inch tunnel down the middle. \

The rules allow for a 1 inch deviation in the belly pan from, basically, any two points along that belly pan and some enterprising folks have thought about building a tunnel for their existing cars by adding a false bottom. But if you build a frame from scratch, it is much better to put that tunnel up into the car by recessing it in the frame.

Anyway, that's my guess as to the question of why :mrgreen: .
Ever look at the bottom side of a KBS Mk8?
qreshadow
Posts: 71
Joined: August 31st, 2008, 11:36 am

Re: Rewrite of Solo Vee Rules

Post by qreshadow »

jtcolegrove wrote:
qreshadow wrote: Ever look at the bottom side of a KBS Mk8?
Ever think of being a little less arrogant?
jtcolegrove
Posts: 4
Joined: February 3rd, 2012, 4:14 pm

Re: Rewrite of Solo Vee Rules

Post by jtcolegrove »

qreshadow wrote:
jtcolegrove wrote:
qreshadow wrote: Ever look at the bottom side of a KBS Mk8?
Ever think of being a little less arrogant?
Nope. I will be practicing my magic,sorcery, and sleight of hand...

Is that a yes or no? There's a center channel that runs from very far forward in the cockpit all the way to the diffuser mouth which helps move the CP forward. It's a good idea.
vreihen
Posts: 579
Joined: August 5th, 2006, 9:39 pm

Re: Rewrite of Solo Vee Rules

Post by vreihen »

Holy shades of Team.Net, Batman! The only thing missing from this thread is Paul Foster..... :roll:
Post Reply