Rewrite of Solo Vee Rules

Moderator: Dietmar

Rewrite of Solo Vee Rules

Postby MBillings » March 22nd, 2011, 11:57 am

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

Re: Rewrite of Solo Vee Rules

Postby 77fmod » April 1st, 2011, 4:30 pm

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,
77fmod
 
Posts: 322
Joined: July 27th, 2006, 10:20 am

Re: Rewrite of Solo Vee Rules

Postby MBillings » December 30th, 2011, 1:26 pm

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

Re: Rewrite of Solo Vee Rules

Postby RFickes » December 30th, 2011, 3:51 pm

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

Re: Rewrite of Solo Vee Rules

Postby MBillings » January 2nd, 2012, 2:07 pm

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

Re: Rewrite of Solo Vee Rules

Postby Vernon Maxey » January 2nd, 2012, 4:22 pm

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
Vernon Maxey
 
Posts: 68
Joined: August 15th, 2006, 9:14 pm
Location: Kansas City Kansas

Re: Rewrite of Solo Vee Rules

Postby vreihen » January 2nd, 2012, 6:26 pm

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.....
User avatar
vreihen
 
Posts: 579
Joined: August 5th, 2006, 9:39 pm
Location: Orange County, NY

Re: Rewrite of Solo Vee Rules

Postby bill_browne » January 2nd, 2012, 10:03 pm

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

Re: Rewrite of Solo Vee Rules

Postby Vernon Maxey » January 2nd, 2012, 10:36 pm

vreihen, what would those parity allowances be?
Vernon Maxey
 
Posts: 68
Joined: August 15th, 2006, 9:14 pm
Location: Kansas City Kansas

Re: Rewrite of Solo Vee Rules

Postby MBillings » January 3rd, 2012, 1:40 pm

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

Re: Rewrite of Solo Vee Rules

Postby bill_browne » January 3rd, 2012, 3:19 pm

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

Re: Rewrite of Solo Vee Rules

Postby Vernon Maxey » January 3rd, 2012, 6:48 pm

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?
Vernon Maxey
 
Posts: 68
Joined: August 15th, 2006, 9:14 pm
Location: Kansas City Kansas

Re: Rewrite of Solo Vee Rules

Postby vreihen » January 3rd, 2012, 9:16 pm

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.....
User avatar
vreihen
 
Posts: 579
Joined: August 5th, 2006, 9:39 pm
Location: Orange County, NY

Re: Rewrite of Solo Vee Rules

Postby bill_browne » January 4th, 2012, 10:48 am

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

Re: Rewrite of Solo Vee Rules

Postby RFickes » January 4th, 2012, 12:49 pm

Now there is a good idea. Blow through turbo (200+hp) and wings = AM :lol: I like that.
RFickes
 
Posts: 35
Joined: March 13th, 2010, 1:26 pm

Next

Return to Solo Vee

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest

cron