The following letter was sent to the SEB this week in an attempt to
furthur the understanding of why Solo Vees are as they are. The
misconception that the 'new tech' is a potential advantage that we ignore
limits the understanding of the level of seriousness that exists in our
cars.
Solo Events Board and Howard Duncan
Sports Car Club of America
9033 Easter Place
Englewood, CO 80112
Dear Solo Events Board Members and Howard Duncan:
The April 1999 issue of Fastrack reported on page 21 that no action was
recommended on member requests concerning F-Modified preparation. The
following statement was also included:
"It is also recognized that none of the Solo Vees currently running use
‘new tech’ chassis.”
There is good reason for this. The major designs improvements in the
modern “new tech” road race Formula Vee are in the areas of rear suspension,
aerodynamics, and chassis construction features. The specific improvements
are for a road race Formula Vee, and are not necessarily improvements for a
Solo Vee. This is why the older Formula Vee designs are the chassis of
choice for the Solo Vee community. Comments about the chassis differences
follow.
The goal of absolute stability at 110 mph is greatly enhanced with the
modern leading arm zero roll rear suspensions. This handling charateristic
is not a valid goal in Solo Vee, however. Even the trailing arm zero-roll
rear suspensions will not work on a Solo Vee without adding a sway bar to
put back the rear roll stiffness that the zero-roll was designed to take
out. With zero-roll corner balance must be obtained with added ballast, or
other physical change to the distribution of weight. The Z-bar suspensions
of the older cars are much easier to adjust to Solo needs.
The minimum silhouette mandated by the Formula Car Specifications is why the
ride height of many of the current Vees is as high as it is----less frontal
area for improved aerodynamics. The areo package offered by current Vee
designs offers low drag and considerable consideration as to how well the
car will draft. The cars with the higher ride heights would logically have
a slightly higher center of gravity----not a good thing in Solo. We
obviously don’t care about drafting, but the low drag is a good thing. It
is frequently accomplished, however, by packaging the driver in a manner
that is not desirable, because of cramped space. Solo requires rapid back
and forth steering inputs which can be hampered by the cramped quarters.
Vision is usually not as good in the modern road race chassis.
Some of the modern designs have improved the ease of manufacture. While
this isn’t bad in itself, compromises to chassis stiffness can be in a Solo
Vee. Some lack of torsional stiffness in a road racing car may be
desirable, or at least of limited concern, when no roll stiffness exists at
the rear of the car.
A late model Formula Vee could certainly be converted to a successful Solo
Vee. It simply would take more work than an earlier car, without any
advantage. The Adams Aero would seem to be the closest to what is required,
but it would require significant revision to the rear suspension. The main
plus for the latter cars may well be that it easier to find a straight one.
The main disadvantage to the older designs is merely that they are old and
frequently require repairs to get a square platform to work on.
In summary the SVOA members do not feel that the new “high tech” Formula Vee
chassis offers any significant advantages for the design of a Solo
Vee.racecar.
Sincerely,
Rudy Bahnsen
Director SVOA
|