Rewrite of Solo Vee Rules

Moderator: Dietmar

Re: Rewrite of Solo Vee Rules

Postby jtcolegrove » February 16th, 2012, 6:27 pm

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

Postby jtcolegrove » February 16th, 2012, 6:28 pm

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?
jtcolegrove
 
Posts: 4
Joined: February 3rd, 2012, 4:14 pm

Re: Rewrite of Solo Vee Rules

Postby qreshadow » February 16th, 2012, 10:19 pm

jtcolegrove wrote:
qreshadow wrote:Ever look at the bottom side of a KBS Mk8?


Ever think of being a little less arrogant?
qreshadow
 
Posts: 71
Joined: August 31st, 2008, 11:36 am

Re: Rewrite of Solo Vee Rules

Postby jtcolegrove » February 16th, 2012, 10:49 pm

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.
jtcolegrove
 
Posts: 4
Joined: February 3rd, 2012, 4:14 pm

Re: Rewrite of Solo Vee Rules

Postby vreihen » February 18th, 2012, 11:08 am

Holy shades of Team.Net, Batman! The only thing missing from this thread is Paul Foster..... :roll:
User avatar
vreihen
 
Posts: 579
Joined: August 5th, 2006, 9:39 pm
Location: Orange County, NY

Re: Rewrite of Solo Vee Rules

Postby vreihen » February 19th, 2012, 8:59 pm

Bringing this thread back onto the topic of F-Mod parity, I have to point out the irony about something that I just realized. Every time us Vee owners suggest that the cheapest way to parity is with a hundred pounds of lead on the F500's, we hear the rationale against doing so being that the suspension/frames of the F500's aren't durable enough to carry another hundred pounds of weight without breaking. Then, someone brings an F500 out that must have had 300+ pounds of downforce on it given how fast it was, and not only did it finish the event without falling apart but it actually won the event to boot! This is like an 8-foot tall Wookie on the planet Endor with 2-foot tall Ewoks -- it just does not make sense. :roll:

Seriously though, if the F500's are going aero and seeing those types of gains, me thinks that the MAC had better step in sooner rather than later and move them all to B-Mod with all of the other sports car-bodied vehicles with undertray aero.....
User avatar
vreihen
 
Posts: 579
Joined: August 5th, 2006, 9:39 pm
Location: Orange County, NY

Re: Rewrite of Solo Vee Rules

Postby 77fmod » February 19th, 2012, 10:07 pm

Okay,
I do know about the 1" deviation rule and unfortunatly they will be able to exploit that rule but we will not, as our body width is limited to something like the width of the frame. I forget but they just rewrote the rules to not allow any tinkering in that area.
Having said that, isn't there a statement that the 1" deviation is not allowed to create any aero downforce even in their class?

I will have to reread the rules...

10:1 gives you extra torque throughout the entire rev range.. A lighter flywheel allows for faster spinup, although too light and you have excessive engine braking into the corners. I would ask for 11 lbs... It's a cheap tuning aid.

As for dual carbs and bigger valves, they will most likely increase HP but not necessarily torque and that is what we need to focus on. But if it's an option, so be it... I would like the bigger valves and unshrouding of the valves...

I am already downsizing the venturis in my card and having two of them really doesn't do much except for a shorter manifold into the head.

And if we ask for compression, why not ask for 10.5 : 1?

As mentioned before and seems to be forgotten in all the emails, we need to be united in our requests... It's easier for them to deny separate requests as opposed to a united effort..

So let's agree on what we are asking for rather than sending multiple emails....

Oh, and Lynn, I have to agree that fuel injection is way to expensive for anyone to consider other than you apparently...

Until later,

Johnny B.
77fmod
 
Posts: 324
Joined: July 27th, 2006, 10:20 am

Re: Rewrite of Solo Vee Rules

Postby 77fmod » February 19th, 2012, 10:18 pm

LOL!

That's so funny! Yeah, I was proven wrong in my protest against Scott but that doesn't mean that I wouldn't protest you... and looking into your motor is a lot easier than a VW.. If there isn't someone out there to keep us honest it opens up the door for anyone to cheat! Besides if you were road racing and won you would have to be prepared for it..

Grow some! You won.. no one protested.. Accept the consequences... You might kick our butts again next year but we will be looking at your ride much closer..

In the spirit of sportsmanship, I harbor no ill will towards you or your brother but I do not appreciate your defensive posture to our disucssions. If you are legal, you have nothing to defend! Go with the grace of God and I look forward to meeting you..

Johnny B.
77fmod
 
Posts: 324
Joined: July 27th, 2006, 10:20 am

Re: Rewrite of Solo Vee Rules

Postby 77fmod » February 20th, 2012, 7:30 pm

In all fairness, you are right. I was not there and maybe the photo I saw was somehow not a prime example of the obviously superb handling that thing must have; however, we are free to discuss this and any other issue on this site to get a better understanding of what is going on.

I also have to also say that I do understand how aero works... I don't think all the intelligence in the world is out there where you are from.. New York is it? So don't any of us short!

BTW, the only reason Scott was protested was because he was planning to leave FM for CM and I just wanted to make sure he was playing with a correct car.

And I only hope you can still be as fast or faster than me in the same car when you are 60 years old.

Best regards,
Last edited by 77fmod on February 20th, 2012, 9:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
77fmod
 
Posts: 324
Joined: July 27th, 2006, 10:20 am

Re: Rewrite of Solo Vee Rules

Postby 77fmod » February 20th, 2012, 8:52 pm

How in the heck do you guys copy those previous posts into a new one?

Vreihen, ( What a weird name!)
Your post was brilliant; however I struggled with the Wookie and the Ewoks reference.. :lol:

I repeat, I do not think two carbs give you much other than a quicker throtle response. I am sure that everyone is running a much smaller venturi than we could with the carb that we have.

Again, I say that we should be united in our request. So let's get some agreement between ourselves before pounding them with various requests..

Best regards,
77fmod
 
Posts: 324
Joined: July 27th, 2006, 10:20 am

Re: Rewrite of Solo Vee Rules

Postby vreihen » February 20th, 2012, 9:49 pm

77fmod wrote:How in the heck do you guys copy those previous posts into a new one?


Instead of clicking the reply button, click on the Quote button on the top right of a post. You then have to make little HTML-style blocks with quote and /quote (end quote) in square brackets just like you do to include web URL links or photos. Some boards have a multi-quote button right next to it, so that you can quote multiple posts in one reply. I didn't notice if this one does, though.

77fmod wrote:Vreihen, ( What a weird name!)
Your post was brilliant; however I struggled with the Wookie and the Ewoks reference.. :lol:


"Vee Reihenmotor" = "inline Vee" = VR6 = big ol' lump of a VW powerplant that occupied the hood area of my first autocrosser, and I kept the screen name to the chagrin of a thousand current VR6 owners.

The Star Wars critter references are part of the classic "Chewbacca Defense" parody of Johnny Cochran from the South Park TV show:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_defense

Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests..... :lol:
User avatar
vreihen
 
Posts: 579
Joined: August 5th, 2006, 9:39 pm
Location: Orange County, NY

Re: Rewrite of Solo Vee Rules

Postby jtcolegrove » February 20th, 2012, 11:00 pm

I broke enough shit on my car this year at 800lbs, including my frame. I can't imagine what else would have broken at 900. My car wasn't making 300# of downforce either. The nice part about that, is that the car doesn't need to accelerate the downforce, it's just an increase in the normal force at the contact patch (and thus the car is not working as hard as if it were dead weight). I don't think our braking system would do so well @ 900lbs. Additionally, there really isn't a safe place to hang #100 lbs of ballast either.

If you move all the F5's to BM, you guys wouldn't have a class. Guess how many FV entries were fielded last year at national tours......4 (that's for the entire season, not just one event). All of those entries together at 1 event wouldn't even get to run as a class, you'd be bumped.

F5 fielded 43 entries, not including ladies. You're being out-participated 10:1 Why am I going to hang ballast on my car so that you can field 4 entries / year???

The decision to run our two separate formula cars in the same class was probably made when I was in middle school, but it doesn't appear to have been a wise one. You guys shouldn't be running against cars that are narrower, it creates course dependency problems. The Vs belong in a class either on there own, where the cars are dimensionally more equivalent, such as CM.

On a related note, which FV cars that were competing last year were fully prepped to the new rules, including diff, motor, etc...?


vreihen wrote:Bringing this thread back onto the topic of F-Mod parity, I have to point out the irony about something that I just realized. Every time us Vee owners suggest that the cheapest way to parity is with a hundred pounds of lead on the F500's, we hear the rationale against doing so being that the suspension/frames of the F500's aren't durable enough to carry another hundred pounds of weight without breaking. Then, someone brings an F500 out that must have had 300+ pounds of downforce on it given how fast it was, and not only did it finish the event without falling apart but it actually won the event to boot! This is like an 8-foot tall Wookie on the planet Endor with 2-foot tall Ewoks -- it just does not make sense. :roll:

Seriously though, if the F500's are going aero and seeing those types of gains, me thinks that the MAC had better step in sooner rather than later and move them all to B-Mod with all of the other sports car-bodied vehicles with undertray aero.....
jtcolegrove
 
Posts: 4
Joined: February 3rd, 2012, 4:14 pm

Re: Rewrite of Solo Vee Rules

Postby 77fmod » February 24th, 2012, 8:44 pm

300 lbs of downforce! That's beautiful...

However, in regard to the downforce being applied only at the contact patch, since the elements that are generating that force are attached to the chassis the chassis would have to be able to hold the components in place and the suspension would have to keep it from bottoming out. So I believe it is transmitted through the chassis; however, it is only generated at speed and is spread to the contact points based on the CP. That said, it is not weight located at one spot somewhere on the chassis which could cause additional stress at that point.

So just for the sake of discussion, I also realize that the 500's are able to support the concentrated load of a driver right in the middle of the chassis.

Anybody remember how heavy JIm (the co-founder of the class) ran? He was a big man and ran way over the minimum..

I can't argue with the numbers of vees going down but it has to do with the lack of eveness in the class and this is what confuses me more than anything else. 6-8 years ago we were very cpetitive with the 500's and then we got all the upgrades to improve our rides and now we are even furter out of the numbers.

Well, I do have a sorted and fully prepped car that I hope to get to nationals this year. The last outing was such a disaster I hope every one has gotten over it. I felt that I took a lot of heat from my fellow competetors afterwards on various sites but it was just a case of exteremly bad luck. And now I have last year's winner PO'd because I had the audacity to question whether his car was legal or not. So it's going to be interesting at the very least. Also, I heard that some people were gotalking of vandalizing my equipment year before last. If that is what this class has become then I will be glad to get out of it.

I know I still have some good friends within the 500 ranks and I am extremely thankful for them..

I'm finished rambling.

JGB
77fmod
 
Posts: 324
Joined: July 27th, 2006, 10:20 am

Re: Rewrite of Solo Vee Rules

Postby Vernon Maxey » February 28th, 2012, 10:19 am

So, has anyone sent in their letter to the SEB?
Vernon Maxey
 
Posts: 68
Joined: August 15th, 2006, 9:14 pm
Location: Kansas City Kansas

Re: Rewrite of Solo Vee Rules

Postby RFickes » February 29th, 2012, 8:59 am

Yes, I wrote to them in September. Making the same suggestions that have been discussed. They emailed me Dec.28 and informed me ".
Your letter has been reviewed by the Solo Events Board. The response will be in an upcoming Fastrack".
Richard
RFickes
 
Posts: 35
Joined: March 13th, 2010, 1:26 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Solo Vee

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron