I agree with Bruce. The creation of this committee is a good idea and
I see no problem with allowing the different heads. All I see with
the creation of this committee is positive, with the possibility of
more Vees showing up, setup to the max the rules allow, and competing
on par with/or above the F440/F5's, thus improving the class. But it
will take a year or so to get those other cars. Now for the part that
will probably upset some. (So Flame On) With more and different SV's
competing and with new and different ideas on how to setup a SV, I
believe we will see a SV that is competitive and capable of winning
any event, not just the National Championship, which is the basis for
some, whether or not the cars are at a level of parity. I believe the
key to this is in the suspension, not the engine at this time, and
none that I have seen compete, are there, yet.
More cars = more ideas = better results = better competition.
The SVOA says that parity is not achievable at this time and are not
proceeding on trying to get it. Does this mean that they are giving
up on improving their cars and hope that a class will be given to them
out of pity. I hope not, the cars are close, and as the many E-mails
last year can prove, no SV owner could or would pin-point the exact
area(s) they needed to improve, as in braking, handling,
acceleration....
The SVOA is a good start and a great idea and I hope ideas will be
shared between the members of the SVOA.
Flame Off
Gary "Fire Extinguisher Ready" Kramar
'89 F440 FM
On Wed, 31 Mar 1999 21:58:14 EST, you wrote:
>In a message dated 3/31/1999 7:09:16 PM Central Standard Time, Autovee@aol.com
>writes:
>
><< What we would like to propose is a change in the cylinder head
>specifications.
> We request that this change be implemented by the SEB at the earliest
>possible
> time. The details and the rational for this follow.
>
> The heads specified by the current rules are not readily available in the
> marketplace. They are expensive to build from stock heads, and the
> performance improvement over stock valve sizes is minimal. The original
> choice of these heads is viewed as a serious mistake in the current rules.
>
> There are better heads, readily available, and these are the street
> performance heads of choice throughout the VW industry. These heads are much
> lower in cost than the present heads specified by the rules. >>
>
>Regardless of whether the heads allowed by the current rules increase
>performance and/or cost, or not, I don't have any heartburn about considering
>a proposal for a change in cylinder heads for one reason. At the time the
>original parity committee started its review of various parity options for
>FMod, F500 hadn't been approved. I may not be remembering this correctly but
>at least in the back of my mind, if not in the back of one or more other's
>minds on the committee and SEB, the thought was if F500 raised the performance
>bar for the class (even as it is currently restricted) then the next level of
>performance heads for Solo Vees should be considered for approval.
>
>So, the SVOA's proposal is consistent with what I remember as being a future
>option discussed at the time of the original parity proposal should F500's
>have more performance potential that F440. I do not know whether the specific
>heads requested in their letter to the SEB are a suitable next step, or not.
>But I support the concept that the group has asked the SEB to consider and
>encourage the SEB to investigate the fairness of their proposal.
>
>Bruce Dickey
|