Information needed on unique Formula Vee

[socaljeff3798]

Hey guys.
I an trying to find out anything I can about this Formula Vee.
I know it was built by Paul Stinemueller. I think sometime in the 70's. I know he has passed away. But I think its an interesting Vee.
Does anyone know anything about this car?

Any help would be appreciated.
And thank you to Jerry Winker of ComicOzzie Autosport for allowing me to use the pictures.

Jeff

[provamo]

slick but i doubt it is/was legal

looks too wide

[Hardingfv32]

The width is spot on and would be legal then & now.

Aerodynamically surface drag plays against the benefit inclosing the suspension and shielding half the rear tires.

Brian

[provamo]

Brian, just agree with me so i do not have to read the rules and retract my statement

[gbmetcalf]

The only thing I see that would be suspect according to the GCR is the bottom profile. It is a quite unique FV for sure. Maybe Butch D., Brian M., Dietmar, or Bob B might know about the car.

G.

[Jeremy Soule]

Cool, looks like a very well thought out and built car.
Try posting on www.formulavee.org too.

[socaljeff3798]

Thanks guys. I agree about the aero drag negating any gains but its great that someone tried something different.
It has an interesting Zero Roll set up I will post a pic when I get a better shot of it.
Another interesting thing is the silver you see on the side of the car are actually the trailing arms. they run very far forward. The only thing I can think of is he was trying to reduce rear steer.

As for being SCCA legal. I am sure it was raced with SCCA? Otherwise why build it? The pictures are surely not Autocross and this type of would have no effect.

[GregSmith]

As the name on the side of the car implies, that's what he called it, I believe the Mark 1. I met Paul briefly at a mid 70's June Sprints, a very interesting and creative guy, from MN. Sorry to hear of his passing. So, where is the car now? Big body and all, it's a classic.

[socaljeff3798]

I have the car. And plan on doing a full restoration. It is complete less engine. Because I am in the process of building my Lynx. I will not have time to do anything with for at least a year. I believe cars like this need to be saved and shown to others. To me these are heirlooms. I even have the original body molds.

I did go through the current GRC and there is nothing about width. The only thing that pertains to it would be the front and rear track. But that pertains to tire track and not body.
Unless I am missing something here?

Jeff

[socaljeff3798]

I found this pertaining to body work in the GRC.

E. Any bodywork forward of the center of the torsion bar tubes shall
not extend outward beyond the centerline of the shock towers
(maximum width of 31.75 inches or 80.645cm).

F. No part of the frame or bodywork shall project beyond a plane
connecting the vertical centerline of the front and rear tires.

[Bruce]

Talk to Ron Chuck

[gbmetcalf]

I have the car. And plan on doing a full restoration. It is complete less engine. Because I am in the process of building my Lynx. I will not have time to do anything with for at least a year. I believe cars like this need to be saved and shown to others. To me these are heirlooms. I even have the original body molds.

I did go through the current GRC and there is nothing about width. The only thing that pertains to it would be the front and rear track. But that pertains to tire track and not body.
Unless I am missing something here?

Jeff

Jeff there is a section in the FV rules about the bottom of the car can only deviate 1"

[SIZE=1]"N. The bottom of any bodywork that extends below the frame members shall be on the same flat plane as the undertray (ref. C.8) and shall not deviate from that flat plane by more than 1 inch front to rear effective for any newly registered cars after January 1, 1983. "

That is the section I was referring to but if your car was constructed prior to 1983 this section does not apply.

G.
[/SIZE]

[Daryl DeArman]

That rule would also require the bodywork to extend below the frame members...and this may not.

Got to give the builder credit for taking a different path. I think it's ugly as sin and doesn't "look" aerodynamically efficient in the profile. However, I've owned plenty of ugly cars that worked quite well. Clean and well prepared, but ugly none the less.

[socaljeff3798]

The car was built in the 70's

I would call it interesting. Not so much ugly. What I love is the time Paul took to think outside the box. In the 70's everyone thought that sportscaster noses were the way to go on formula cars and we saw how that turned out.

[pacratt]

Body width does look legal per GCR.

Very interesting looking. From the days when 'aero" was thought to be mainly over the top and not so much down the sides.

But can't tell from the photos... are there trailing arms or leading arms ?
If the mounting points of the trailing / leading arms is hidden inside the bodywork, then it IS illegal.

Would love to see some shots without the body.

Glenn

[socaljeff3798]

Glen, Thanks for your input. I keep find more fascinating things about this car.

In the pictures what see that is silver and looks like the chassis is actually the trailing arm!
It extends all the way to the front of the car just about 18" from the front beam!
The trailing arm looks to be about a 4" wide extruded aluminum sheet with about a 2" "L" bend on top. The Silver you see on the side of the car is aluminum sheet that boxed the trailing arms to bring it out to the edge of the body. so it just sits inside the body for aero dynamics.
My since is Paul poured over the GRC at the time and knew what he could do and could not do.
I don't believe the SCCA stickers are on the car for looks. I think it was 100% legal at the time it was built.

Jeff

[Hardingfv32]

If the mounting points of the trailing / leading arms is hidden inside the bodywork, then it IS illegal.

Body: Section 9.O was changed this year so this would not be the case currently.

If the trailing arm was extended outward with aluminum sheet metal then it would have been legal. A thin viewing slot would also have satisfied the rules as there was no statement made about how much of the trailing arm was required to be visible.

Long trailing arms like this are not light if properly designed for the todays FV racing brake shoes.

Brian

[budawe]

I vaguely remember this car but I just can't place it. Brian has made some valid points about the evolution of bodywork and judging from the pictures I kinda think it's legal. The rules regarding bodywork extending below the frame were written as anti deffuser attempts when other formula classes starting using them. The flat floor rule discusses the area between frame rails. There is a slight variance 1", allowed but outside the frame, body work can be curved upwards and outwards, but not downwards outside the rails.

While some older cars are granted exceptions for larger dia roll bars, SCCA does not grant exceptions for old vees in other areas. If say a roll bar is 1.5 inches and .120 wall ERW tubing, the old rule, it can still run since the size and wall thickness is sufficient to support the less strong ERW tubing to bypass the current seamless requirement. Gold sealing, the act of granting one time exceptions to rules for specific cars, is quite rare. Older cars are almost always required to upgrade to current rules including bodywork, to run in SCCA road racing. Solo and vintage rule are another story.

[Amon]

In all due respect to the prior responses, I don't really care if the body work is legal or not ( rollbar ..yes), because I just want to see this car on the track in the near future! It's too cool and unique not to see it on the track...
Perhaps the current owner can get it ready for the 55th anniversary if we have one?

Mark

88' Citation FV

[socaljeff3798]

Thanks Mark. I have no plans to try and run it in scca. Just vintage events

[Ed Womer]

Brian M. how would you know if a car is built with ERW tubing unless someone told you? After the car is built and painted you can't tell what type of tubing was used because any evidence of markings is now covered with paint.

In addition to building my Womer FV car I also do fabricating work for others and I have installed taller rear hoops and also different side bracing for more room inside the car on a few Mysterian's and everyone I have worked on was built with ERW tubing. It is noticeable only when you cut out the old tubing and can look inside and you can visibly see the welded seem from the manufacturing process.

So if the tubing measures OK from the outside and using the inspection hole to check wall thickness and that is also OK there is no way to know what was used unless you can see inside the tubing and you can't tell the difference from DOM to chrome molly since they both have no sign of the welded seem due to the manufacturing process.

Ed

[budawe]

Other than magnetic imaging equipment, you are correct about inspecting ERW tubing. The GCR is very clear about ERW tubing not being legal anymore for roll bars. There are old cars with the larger dia. ERW tubing that could be considered legal because they had been built under the existing rules at the time of build. I guess it's a matter of integrity of the builder if they want to circumvent the rules with lessor quality tubing when using the smaller diameters listed in the GCR but I personally don't see an issue with using the heavier 1.5" dia., .120 wall ERW to repair or restore an existing unit.

The smaller dia. DOM or seamless tubing is lighter and easier to bend, so I'd recommend using it.

[Bill Bonow]

I remember seeing the Steinmark at the FV 20th (1983), very unique.

[socaljeff3798]

Hey Bill Would you have any photos or remember anything about Paul or the car.
I am trying to reconstruct the history of Paul and the car.

Thanks
Jeff

[Bill Bonow]

I remember it being in a few photos. I'll dig around.

[socaljeff3798]

Unable to upload pictures at this time.
I am working on it.

[Steve Davis]

I believe that Apex has a limit on the NUMBER of pix you can upload. When you reach that limit, you have to go back and delete some of the oldest ones to make room.

[socaljeff3798]

I know there has been a lot of questions about the legality of this car. I had heard from several people that saw it race so I figured at one point it was legal.
I just found the SCCA numbers on the roll bar. buried under the powered coating.
The Number is 18-590. it is a light stamping but it is there.
So that is the Land O' Lakes Region.
If anybody can help with the time frame that this was issued it would help.
I don't have the log book for it But It would help with knowing when it was first raced.

Jeff

[socaljeff3798]

I have set up a Facebook page to post photos of the Stinemark. No that I have it in my possession it will be easier to update.
I really know nothing about Facebook so any help is appreciated.
You can find it under Jeff Terry or my email which is jefffv@yahoo.com.

Thanks Jeff

[budawe]

Start with the land o lakes region. Most keep a log book of roll bar numbers and that may help. They can reissue a log book as well.

[Offcamber1]

I would love to see this on the track again. This is probably as cool an FV as Harvey Templeton's HR7260 was in Formula Ford.

Real innovation of the trial and error type that was going on back then.

Kip

[budawe]

In the process of becoming one of the longest lasting and popular classes for over a half a century, the formula vee has a rich history.

Back in the 60's garages all over the country were spawning some of the most innovative cars of the time. There were factory dealer guys like Bill Noble and Bob Lybarger providing the best parts available from the factory. And, folks were building their own cars. Their simple engineering, matched the best German engineering, produced some of the best race cars of the period.

Cars like Ringwrath, Shadow Fax, continuing the Lord of the Rings theme, the Sting, and Glamdring, other cars like the Vista, Agitator and Dart continued to push the envelope.

Cars like Jeff's need to be preserved. It's our history.

[socaljeff3798]

Thank you both Kip and Brian.
I am glad to see that there are others that appreciate the time, energy and hours that goes into these one off cars. This is not to take anything away from the builders of today. Like Brian says this is the history and although most of these one offs never won a run off or even a race. The people that built them put their heart and soul into them. I just try to preserve their legacy a little bit.
As I sit and look at all the bits on this car I wish I could have Paul there to explain to me why he did all the things he did. What his thoughts were.
I am a huge history buff. And I tell my wife. History is not about dates and facts its about people. Our history is made by the thoughts and decisions that were made but people.

This car has had modification done over the years but to my knowledge Paul made all of them. I have not found any record of them or anyone that was involved with it that can provide the "missing link" as of yet. So if anyone can provide any pictures or information it would be helpful.
I will be posting more pictures on my face book page tonight with the body "on" that is worded very loosely as the body does not fit properly so I dont know if it is shrinkage or because of shrinkage.
I will update as I learn more.
Thanks again
Jeff

[socaljeff3798]

Ok, New pictures are now posted on the facebook page I created for it.

Facebook is jefffv@yahoo.com

[R. Pare]

The only thing I see that would be suspect according to the GCR is the bottom profile. It is a quite unique FV for sure. Maybe Butch D., Brian M., Dietmar, or Bob B might know about the car.

G.

Unless something has changed in the last couple years, the Vee bottom rule ( floorpan) refers to a side-to-side vertical dimension, not fore-aft. Bob L. and I clarified that maybe 15 years ago when he was on the Comp Board and the rules were being looked at during an annual meeting.

[budawe]

You're right Richard. The belly pan flat area is measured from side to side within the centerlines of the axles. The rear belly pay must also follow the contour of the frame as well. Only those cars without a rear subframe are permitted to have a flat tray under the tranny. Unlike a couple of examples I saw at Daytona, the belly pan must not exceed the width of the sub frame as well.

Any bodywork that extends below the frame rails must follow the same plane as the undertray and not deviate more than 1".

The language is intended to prevent diffusers or other aero treatments in the rear of the car.

[socaljeff3798]

Update on the StineMark.
I have had some changes and have no space for this innovative FV.
I have just made a deal on a Super Vee and that has an extra tub. I will let you do the math.
I have talked with Bob Hatle and be both agree that this car needs to go to someone that will restore it and not part it out. So we are trying to find a good home for it.

If anyone is intersted please contact me or Bob.

I can be reached at 951-317-9307 You can call me any time.
Bobs number is 760-772-0092

Jeff and Bob