No, not Gordon Sumner. Really interesting mid-70s FV on Bring a Trailer right now. I spent about 45 minutes looking at the 150+ pictures. Very cool design! It took me a while just looking to figure out some of the design objectives. Nifty!
Printable View
No, not Gordon Sumner. Really interesting mid-70s FV on Bring a Trailer right now. I spent about 45 minutes looking at the 150+ pictures. Very cool design! It took me a while just looking to figure out some of the design objectives. Nifty!
I seem to recall a Stan Townes racing a Swift DB-1 in NorPac in the late 80s...
I believe this was the first trailing arm rear suspension for a FV.
Correction: Yes.....leading arm
Brian
"LEADING Arm" rear suspension.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardingfv32
Glenn
Stan bought the DB1 new and was still racing it well into the last decade. It may have been the oldest original owner DB1 ever!Quote:
Originally Posted by Bardahl77
I haven’t seen the ad, but Yes, Stan did run a unique Vee in the ‘70s, and FF later. I believe this was the car that Stan ran in 1975 (Edit: it wasn’t).Quote:
Originally Posted by Bardahl77
Last time I saw him was at Topeka in 2006 for the Runoffs — in a blue FF Swift. He also hauled a Van Diemen for James Hakewill to Topeka.
Edit: Here’s the ad, not the car I was thinking of:
https://bringatrailer.com/listing/19...r-formula-vee/
Depends on which direction you're goingQuote:
Originally Posted by pacratt
This is a very interesting car, from the photos and sketches it looks like it has dual brake pedals. What I'm more curious about is how did the shift linkage work?
Nothing out of the normal about the shift linkage operation. It just pivots on a plane turn 90 deg from what you usually see, horizontal vs vertical.
This car is vintage eligible in SOVREN Club Formula Vee class. No changes required as far as I can see. Folks in the northwest who want to race vintage should look hard at this one it is a historic car. Cars from 1975 to 1983 are intended for SOVREN Formula Vee.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardingfv32
This car reminds of the Glamering FV car designed and built by Mark Edwards in 1982 and still campaigned today with CalClub in So. California.
We look like having two cars for sure to run Club Formula Vee with SOVREN virus permitting..
Thanks for posting the BaT link. I normally don't celebrate cheater cars, but that has some neat stuff. Reversing the front beam is clearly illegal, regardless of what tortured technicality was used in defense.
On a more relative note, I would certainly want to rework that front roll hoop before I ever drove it or let someone else drive it. Scary!
Invisible starter too. Pretty cool historical car for what is currently a great price. I am sure the bidders wish this thread would go away.Quote:
Originally Posted by tsiembieda
Quote:
Originally Posted by problemchild
The way the rules read as of 10 minutes ago state that you must use the unaltered VW beam, but it doesn’t mention anywhere about mounting parameters or mounting direction. The only limiting factor is your wheelbase really, unless I’ve totally missed something. I’m not even sure why you would want the beam mounted in reverse? The turkey legs are as they should be, maybe someone could shed some light as to the possible upside of running a beam backwards?
pretty cool car, I love seeing cars that go outside the box with their design!
Reversing the beam and laying it back as Stan did results in a minimal frontal area re the beam. Unfortunately the caster angle is very large. I wonder how heavy the steering is? The drivers feet are almost flat, toes pointing to the sides to fit.
Yes, I think some serious work needs to be done on the front roll hoop unless the front shock mounts are considered part of the rollover system!
Remember Townes was very short in height and small in build.Quote:
Folks in the northwest who want to race vintage should look hard at this one it is a historic car.
This car reminds of the Glamering FV ....
The Glamering is a newer version of the Sting with some better engineering. Also compliant to the changes taking place at the time.
The two builders were/are good friends.
Brian
There you go again with your 'Holier than Thou' attitude.Quote:
Originally Posted by problemchild
There was nothing tortured about the protest defense. The rule did and still calls out for a single control arms per side at the rear. No statement about orientation. If it was such a egregious offense to the sensibilities of the class why wasn't the rule changed? There was not more than one or two cars doing this at the time, so not much harm with a ban.
The front hoop is pointless in almost all FV rollovers. The shock towers are of some help but the front wheels are the main main contact point. They are not normally missing when a FV rolls.
Brian
I would say the reason is to get free of the beam horns that at the time limited how low the front beam could be. Of course now we are allowed to remove the horns.Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbie.Arthur
You can not lay over the beam without changing the caster. The steering is going to get very heavy if you add too much caster.
The thin nose on this car is of almost no benefit. The aero drag at our racing speeds is more influenced by frontal area than sleekness (Cd). Also remember this car did not have to comply with the fan shroud rules that came very shortly after it was built.
Brian