Landracing Forum

Bonneville Salt Flats Discussion => 2017 and before: SW & WF => SpeedWeek 2016 => Topic started by: Milwaukee Midget on August 19, 2016, 11:21:08 PM

Title: How were the 2016 courses?
Post by: Milwaukee Midget on August 19, 2016, 11:21:08 PM
Rex made a comment on the picture post which I think needs further discussion on a separate post -

. . . I drained my cooler onto the salt and this hole appeared at about 30 seconds of the drain water hitting the salt. This is in the pits and the salt is not more than 3/4 inch thick . . .

Rex

We've come off of nearly 2 years without a public event at Bonneville.  This year, SCTA-BNI ran only 3 courses with 650 entries.

Who raced, and what were your assessments of the salt?
Title: Re: How were the 2016 courses?
Post by: Seldom Seen Slim on August 19, 2016, 11:25:39 PM
First:  NOT 650 entries.  That number was listed and then retracted, sorta.  About 450 pre-entries and a bunch more on site and so on, so maybe 650 eventual entries/changes.

This morning Cathy Butler, on her 600 cc bike, couldn't back up the qualifier from yesterday.  The data showed that as she was riding in high gear -- she was having 33% wheelslip.  LOTS of vehicles slowed in the fifth mile.  And I could go on and say how bad things were --

Then Rob and George and Danny and so on whip out with runs in the high threes and low fours -- so what about the bad course?

I didn't make any runs so can't tell you for positive.
Title: Re: How were the 2016 courses?
Post by: wickedwagens on August 19, 2016, 11:35:54 PM
I ran on the rookie course and it was really good from what I could tell.  There ere places where you could see the mud coming through on the return road.  I heard from lots that the other courses were not the best. 
Title: Re: How were the 2016 courses?
Post by: joea on August 20, 2016, 12:04:46 AM
the most treacherous...greasy...bumpy course of all time...at least that I have been on
since 1991

yeah some big heavy cars could get down the course...especially if 4 wheel drive...

believe me they all could have gone much faster on a good course

yes some bikes did ok...

but believe me... faster..higher hp stuff ...well...very very trecherous

the salt is very different....even with hot dry days...its was "greasy"...not a good composition/matrix....

dont take my word for it...

look at the log sheet....count how many turned out early....how many spins...

and incidences....such as veterans like George Fields...who made a pass sat and was very upset at the
conditions of the course...who pulled plug and left by monday...that is someone who can and has driven
on nearly anything Bonn. has had to offer...until now..

or Fast Freddie D. who preps the courses...breaking the nose on his liner on one of the bumps....

its going to be a chassis tuners game more so than ever in my opinion

additionally ...many heard well sorted teams like Demon...REALLY working their traction control overtime
and still loosing tires...

yes the salt has been slick before, and bumpy before....this salt lacked structural integrity like I have never seen...

like i said ...look at the run logs....turn outs... incidences...etc

anyone see Nishes runs..?..have a look ....they are one of the most sorted and experienced teams out their...

Title: Re: How were the 2016 courses?
Post by: Dynoroom on August 20, 2016, 12:24:24 AM
Joe Amo has a good grasp of how poor the course was. I have been going to Bonneville since 1979. The best runs were early in the meet. The track was not good to start with but deteriorated to the consistency of SAND after the first 200 runs or so. You could run through it but you were a lot slower than what you should have run.
Better to have a event with a crappy course than NO event at all like the last two years.

Support Save the Salt!!!

We need to keep the pressure on the BLM.
Title: Re: How were the 2016 courses?
Post by: jl222 on August 20, 2016, 12:35:17 AM
  The 222 Camaro was running to rich on the long course but it was so bumpy the front end was shaking, even with low power
it was loose.
 Tuned much better we tried the short course, better but eyes had double vision and extremely loose conditions at 40% or less throttle in 1st,2nd and third gear I shifted into high sooner than usual as I thought any more power would spin me.
 High gear rpms were to low and fouled a plug, hoping it would clear up I stayed in it, still with a 209mph 1/4 mile time and on 7 cyl it slowly picked up to 228 mph and spun in the 3 mile.
 Pushing across the track I noticed a lot of loose salt.
 I was told by a dragger that the salt was just to dry and needed rain to bond and get hard,

  2 cars pitted near us had extreme problems with the bumpy long course with vision problems, car jumping up and down and traction, one destroyed the heim joints putting front end out of alignment, they both called it quits.

  I understand the draggers can't use the heavy railroad track drag as the salt is to thin, so they use lighter ones and can't get it as smooth as past years  Lets hope for more salt lay down.

the tires on un sprung cars being towed back on return road in front of our pits were hopping off the ground.

 Speeds were way down on a lot of fast cars.

   JL222

                
Title: Re: How were the 2016 courses?
Post by: Black Rose Racing on August 20, 2016, 01:07:25 AM



the salt is very different....even with hot dry days...its was "greasy"...not a good composition/matrix....

Intreped removes Magnesium Chloride and Potash, Mag Chloride is what binds the Salt and makes it hard and durable. Mag Chloride is used extensively on the Haul truck roads in the Gold mines outside of Elko, it helps keep the road base firm and hold up to 400+ ton haul trucks. Believe me it works very well. The stuff that is pumped back after it dries resembles table salt/sand. That was the lighter colored "loose" stuff that was prevalent at the end of the three through the four.


and incidences....such as veterans like George Fields...who made a pass sat and was very upset at the
conditions of the course...who pulled plug and left by monday...that is someone who can and has driven
on nearly anything Bonn. has had to offer...until now..

 George actually sat out Saturday and waited for a better course on Sunday, one of the first 20 or so down Sunday morning (after record returns). Backed out of it shortly after entering the four. The wheel spin data at the four resembled a semi solid box rather than any kind of a line. Loaded up rather than possibly breaking drive components.

or Fast Freddie D. who preps the courses...breaking the nose on his liner on one of the bumps....

 Fred ran over his front bodywork after it dove into a soft spot. BTW Fred worked very hard, long hours (as did others) trying to prep the best courses possible all throughout the event.

Joe, your observations are right on point. Thank you.
Title: Re: How were the 2016 courses?
Post by: WOODY@DDLLC on August 20, 2016, 08:53:35 AM
XsStress #37: Five mile car and a three mile rough, bumpy course.
http://www.landracing.com/forum/index.php/topic,15631.msg294625.html#msg294625
First run/first course never over half throttle, wandered blue line to blue line. Second run/second course, half/three-quarter throttle till the 4 then full throttle got us a brutal snap spin at 229+!  :x :-P :cry:
How to get nicotine out of fire suit?  :-o :? :-o
Title: Re: How were the 2016 courses?
Post by: Texican on August 20, 2016, 09:53:08 AM
   
How to get nicotine out of fire suit?  shocked huh shocked


"Clorox 2" is a good product for all sorts of stains.
Get the affected area wet, then pour directly on and work in; a small nail brush might be helpful.
After a 5-10 minute soak, flush thoroughly, then use whatever cleaning method recommended by the garment manufacturer.
Good luck; happy to hear you stayed upright.

Jim
Title: Re: How were the 2016 courses?
Post by: kiwi belly tank on August 20, 2016, 10:06:44 AM
On the long course the white ended abruptly with the three to being brown & then started to turn to froth all the way to the 8. I expected it to come apart with the first few runs, as it did. It was located to the right of the usual place for course two leaving the old location to the left for the $$$$ people with the Cook course & that was dragged all the way to the freeway with an additional 3 1/2 miles of respectable salt with the first 1/2 mile of that being a little loose. I found less than one inch of crust everywhere I looked except inside the dyke, & I looked everywhere!
The big canal at the east end is still full & flowing to the plant.
  Sid.
Title: Re: How were the 2016 courses?
Post by: **RP** on August 20, 2016, 11:16:41 AM
Why would the SCTA not be able to layout a course in the same place the Cook course is?  First come first serve?  Just asking. 
Title: Re:
Post by: bbarn on August 20, 2016, 11:24:50 AM
Wr made six passes and took two new sets of tires down to 300mph and less tires. Basically they would be good for license passes.

The salt seemed sharper than ever. Most fast cars lost chutes and chewed up tires. We were fortunate and only lost two chutes. One could probably be repaired.

Rob reported a "sandy" 4 mile on the 2nd day and a bumpy course all week.

Talking with DJ we think the reason our chutes faired so well is the ejecta from our tires was farther outside the flying chutes than other more narrow cars would be.

Can't blame the SCTA for the course, they can only work with what they had. They drug and moved the course as often as necessary.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
Title: Re: How were the 2016 courses?
Post by: joea on August 20, 2016, 11:32:55 AM
I think we also need to understand......the "international course".....is NOT the Cook's course.......

its for anyone.......

i know over the years its been a bit "protected" for the bigger hitters that need a longer track

but even BUB ie the motorcycle only meet utilizes it.....

no one is "blaming" the SCTA

its amazing they were able to have a meet given the current condition of the salt

the salt is "greasier" than ever before ......





Title: Re: How were the 2016 courses?
Post by: JC Sparks on August 20, 2016, 12:15:37 PM
 When I took the Saturday morning drive down the track after the drivers meeting I though it felt kind of ruff, but I'm no judge of what is rough or smooth (I'm just the tuner).
I do know that the SCTA officials worked hard to keep the course as good as they could. And the SCTA officials that I had interactions with conducted themselves in a very professional and courteous way.  JC Sparks

Title: Re: How were the 2016 courses?
Post by: SPARKY on August 20, 2016, 02:53:45 PM
We stayed on the Rookie coarse until we got our A lisc.  Normally we would have gone to the long coarse  ASAP  to give our driver more miles in seat

Wed. when he was the first car out after record runs he took is first LC timing slip back for the starter signature---Bill came back and reported the starter said if you and the car AA qualified on that coarse they were doing dam good..

Bill reported that is was almost like an off-road experience---he ran again after noon an it wasn't as rough and he upped his speed about 15 MPH

We had lots of stuff to tighten up ---we changed to our trailer tires for the tow back to the pits to be able to run on 20 psi instead of 90 in the rear tires---helped some but still was VERY rough---car definitely was airborne at times  we had similar experience with the salt crust being way less that an inch thick   mud coming up through the cracks lots and lots of places---the salt composition is chemically changing what little there is left from the mining.
Title: Re: How were the 2016 courses?
Post by: sdbandit on August 20, 2016, 06:04:39 PM
If the course's where so slippery why did George Poteet have his fastest 4 mile speed ever at a Speedweek
Title: Re: How were the 2016 courses?
Post by: JC Sparks on August 20, 2016, 07:26:00 PM
 I believe the Speed Demon has traction control. You could hear it working.  It's a very nice looking car also.   JC
Title: Re: How were the 2016 courses?
Post by: joea on August 20, 2016, 08:05:39 PM
could be he had a fast 4 mile...cuz he had his newest and most improved car to date...
Title: Re: How were the 2016 courses?
Post by: Seldom Seen Slim on August 20, 2016, 09:42:31 PM
Nancy and I were shooting the breeze with George as we were in the waiting lines, and he said he'd asked his crew to take out a bunch of horsepower if he made another run.  He said he burned the tires down on that 442 run.

Sure sounded cool, though, even with the TC popping and chopping. . .
Title: Re: How were the 2016 courses?
Post by: JR529 on August 20, 2016, 11:00:28 PM
Why would the SCTA not be able to layout a course in the same place the Cook course is?  First come first serve?  Just asking. 

Under normal circumstances the "international course" runs through the starting line of traditional course #2 mile 0 then goes right through the SCTA timing tower location between traditional courses 1 and 2 while heading towards the end of SCTA course #1.

This year SCTA attempted to get two long courses but the start of the #1 course was just to poor to stand up. So the pits were moved on top, even a little in front of the old #1 course, almost to the traditional timing tower location and the traditional course #2 became the only long course.

I guess the SCTA could theoretically put their courses anywhere they please but courtesy and respect keeps the different events from screwing up each other. The Speedweek courses get more use/abuse than any other real estate on the salt so sitting them on top of the international course could destroy it for the rest of the season and that would not be cool. Also, the international course has to be smooth, straight and loooong so they dont have a lot of options. The Speedweek courses have to be tough durable all else. They see more use before lunch on day 1 than the international course sees all season. SW would destroy the single international course in a matter of days, screwing the pooch for everyone for the rest of the year. So all the interested parties communicate their needs long before the events so all can get their respective programs done.

Regarding the course, We ran the Long course with our roadster and got a rookie into the 2 club with a pass at 242 mph but when Greg Waters ran the car and said it moved around more than any he has ever had and he probably has a hundred runs in the car on the salt. So that that for what its worth.
Title: Re: How were the 2016 courses?
Post by: SPARKY on August 21, 2016, 01:21:27 AM
Wow---that makes me one proud papa!!
Title: Re: How were the 2016 courses?
Post by: mergatroyd on August 21, 2016, 01:39:39 AM
I still consider myself a newbie... but the access roads beat my bike worse than the pot-holed test road I have access to locally. More broken pieces and backed out bolts than I care to admit.

None on the course, because we didn't run well enough to leave parts there... I towed at 15mph.
Title: Re: How were the 2016 courses?
Post by: tauruck on August 21, 2016, 10:13:56 AM
Thanks for enlightening us guys too far away to attend the meet.
Very good read. :cheers:
Title: Re: How were the 2016 courses?
Post by: turborick on August 21, 2016, 11:58:36 AM
the most treacherous...greasy...bumpy course of all time...at least that I have been on
since 1991

yeah some big heavy cars could get down the course...especially if 4 wheel drive...

believe me they all could have gone much faster on a good course

yes some bikes did ok...

but believe me... faster..higher hp stuff ...well...very very trecherous

the salt is very different....even with hot dry days...its was "greasy"...not a good composition/matrix....

dont take my word for it...

look at the log sheet....count how many turned out early....how many spins...

and incidences....such as veterans like George Fields...who made a pass sat and was very upset at the
conditions of the course...who pulled plug and left by monday...that is someone who can and has driven
on nearly anything Bonn. has had to offer...until now..

or Fast Freddie D. who preps the courses...breaking the nose on his liner on one of the bumps....

its going to be a chassis tuners game more so than ever in my opinion

additionally ...many heard well sorted teams like Demon...REALLY working their traction control overtime
and still loosing tires...

yes the salt has been slick before, and bumpy before....this salt lacked structural integrity like I have never seen...

like i said ...look at the run logs....turn outs... incidences...etc

anyone see Nishes runs..?..have a look ....they are one of the most sorted and experienced teams out their...



I agree with Joe this was the slickest and bumpiest I have driven on
Title: Re: How were the 2016 courses?
Post by: Stan Back on August 21, 2016, 12:44:40 PM
Thanx to John for describing the course layouts.  Made sense to me, so musta been a simple description.

Can't argue with Rick and Joe (the hero of my best Bonneville story) as they have a whole lot more runs than we have had.

We didn't run this year, but still cherish being the first one to complete the Baja 5 on #1 in 2005.

The best news was that we had a meet this year.  Records are great, but even greater is seeing our friends from all over the world.

Stan
Title: Re: How were the 2016 courses?
Post by: Stainless1 on August 22, 2016, 12:16:28 AM
Yes we got to race,
yes the courses were rough,
yes we had to chase loose bolts around the car,
yes they worked on the courses at night trying to make them better
yes the rough course contributed to a lot of spins and turnouts, including ours,
yes the volunteers did a great job with what they had to work with
yes we would do it again  :cheers:

yes I looked for Stan without finding him, guess because the taco and ice cream place was closed it was harder
Title: Re: How were the 2016 courses?
Post by: mergatroyd on August 22, 2016, 12:18:37 AM
yes we would do it again  :cheers:
I second this.
Title: Re: How were the 2016 courses?
Post by: salt on August 22, 2016, 12:25:30 AM
I wholeheartedly agree with Stainless, except I did run into Jim (Stan). He was taking pictures at the starting line. I believe the courses actually got better (groomed) as time went on, but you had to run in the am to take advantage of this.
There's just not much salt there anymore.

Willi
Kraut Bros.
Title: Re: How were the 2016 courses?
Post by: Nortonist 592 on August 22, 2016, 02:34:34 AM
Nowhere to run for two years and there's bitching and moaning because the salt wasn't perfect?  I'm surprised no one said the salt wasn't white enough.
Title: Re: How were the 2016 courses?
Post by: joea on August 22, 2016, 07:39:33 AM
Uh Norton ....the Title of this thread is "How were the courses"

that's is a question

These are the valid answers ..!!!!!!

No need sugar coating it ...!!!

that's part of the problem

It serves no good purpose to sugar coat this for those in a position to do something about it

additionally for those running on it...

Ie when I got to the line ..starter said "so have you heard about the courses"...

and gave me the run down...

they also described REALITY ...

When Rick Vesco accepted the Bob Higbee award...he sternly warned everyone about the fragile situation...mud poking through and if anyone sees anything amiss to report it immediately to officials ....

this thread is an answer to a question ...

SCTA did an amazing job with the situation ...

Ps I would like to talk to Sam W. about the current salt situation ...but I can't
Title: Re: How were the 2016 courses?
Post by: SPARKY on August 22, 2016, 09:12:03 AM
Larry Volk made a great point when he said the best salt was a SMALL patch on the ROOKIE return road---"All of it used to be like that, hard and smooth".  Since we were going through "lisc up"  we stayed over there drove across it after every run---it did not change, that we could tell, Sat through Tue.  What brought me back to the Salt  in '99 was Reading about the pumping.  Just since then I have seen a slight improvement for a little while  ( probably was when the pumped those big tonnages) then a decided decline in quality.

Wow---Joe Amo, can ride FAST, pass gas, organize his thoughts and "put pen to paper"!!  We do not hear from him often-- but so well to the point when we do!!!!!!!!!  :cheers:  :cheers:  :cheers:
Title: Re: How were the 2016 courses?
Post by: jl222 on August 23, 2016, 08:03:16 PM

  Talked to a nurse today about my blood red eyeball, its a broken blood vessel and it should be back to normal in a week or so, No treatment needed, eye will heal itself, just looks bad. She thinks, and so do I, that it's a result of the car shaking so much. It was terrible, and we have full stock car products  suspension in front and coil overs in back set fairly soft. I had to turn out.

              JL222
Title: Re: How were the 2016 courses?
Post by: Seldom Seen Slim on August 23, 2016, 08:42:34 PM
I wonder -- if these comments are being seen and digested by Utah Alliance folks so that the information can be sent on to those legislators and others that were visiting the salt last week.  Anybody know?
Title: Re: How were the 2016 courses?
Post by: Milwaukee Midget on August 23, 2016, 09:07:53 PM
I wonder -- if these comments are being seen and digested by Utah Alliance folks so that the information can be sent on to those legislators and others that were visiting the salt last week.  Anybody know?

The problem I fear is that the legislators came out, saw salt, saw folks racing on it, and walked away wondering, "So what's the problem?"

One of the reasons I raised my hand last December at PRI when Tom Burkland proposed staying off the salt for another year.  It might have bankrupted BNI to do so, but to the untrained eye, things looked normal.
Title: Re: How were the 2016 courses?
Post by: Seldom Seen Slim on August 23, 2016, 09:14:55 PM
Chris said:  "The problem I fear is that the legislators came out, saw salt, saw folks racing on it, and walked away wondering, "So what's the problem?""

Precisely what I'm hoping to change by them seeing what the racers they saw running have to say about it. :roll:
Title: Re: How were the 2016 courses?
Post by: Cajun Kid on August 23, 2016, 10:16:35 PM
The Rookie course was firmer but rough, the Short course was faster for me. On the long course it was so bumpy my chute came out about the 3.5 at over 190mph all by itself,,, talk about a SUPRISE, next run on the long course I made it past the 3 and hit a dip and soft stuff, air dam hit salt and came back muddy, very thin and loose... had to abort run ,, went back to short course, very bumpy and slick.. My morning runs much better than my afternoon runs,,, GOT MY A LICENSE on the Short Course at 3 mile 206.917  with exit over 209... all good for my first trip to the Salt... My engine pulls strong to 9300, but could not go past 7000 rpm as uncontrollable wheel spin at 7000 in any gear.

Charles
Title: Re: How were the 2016 courses?
Post by: Milwaukee Midget on August 24, 2016, 12:27:24 AM
Im sure SCTA did everything they could to provide the best courses possible, Made a run on the first day on the long course got sideways at 180mph, let my partner drive because i knew the course sucked and he spun at 205mph. I just wonder how long it may take to get the salt back to a decent condition :? :?
lvsalt - sorry for the confusion - I'm attempting to set up a poll -

Chris
Title: Re: How were the 2016 courses?
Post by: mergatroyd on August 24, 2016, 12:32:45 AM
Chris said:  "The problem I fear is that the legislators came out, saw salt, saw folks racing on it, and walked away wondering, "So what's the problem?""

Precisely what I'm hoping to change by them seeing what the racers they saw running have to say about it. :roll:

I heard Louise's comment on the radio that a legislator-type commented on the rough ride during the tour along with a statement to the effect of "Racers are racing, what's the problem." Louise told the world that she explained to the legislator the link from rough access roads to deteriorating salt surface and cited the number of racers that had gone home early due to the surface.
Title: Re: How were the 2016 courses?
Post by: Milwaukee Midget on August 24, 2016, 01:05:35 AM
I just set up a poll - the comments are locked on it, but if you would like to vote, I've included instructions.  By locking the poll, we can keep the comments all on one thread - this one, to be precise.

http://www.landracing.com/forum/index.php/topic,16271.msg295651/topicseen.html#msg295651
Title: Re: How were the 2016 courses?
Post by: ratpatrol66 on August 24, 2016, 04:07:13 AM
After the drivers meeting I had 4 people load up in my car for a trip down the short course. I went 80mph and it was rough in a 94 Buick Roadmaster. I can't imagine what it would be like in any race car over 120?
Title: Re: How were the 2016 courses?
Post by: rouse on August 24, 2016, 09:44:28 AM
I made 12 ( according to SSS 24) runs all week and the first one was most defiantly the roughest, especially in the shutdown area of the short course.

The folks working the courses and dragging at night, did one heck of a job with what they had to work with. I think they all deserve a big applause from all of us that ran at Speed Week.

From what I could tell the salt was getting better as the week progressed. It was much dryer later in the week, and for the most part, smoother to run on. I never did figure out the turnouts thou, seems like I only found the worst pressure ridges I could find to get to the return road.

All things considered, we did more than we came for, so I'm happy we were there. Here's hoping for more improvements for the salt conditions in the years to come, it really needs it.

Rouse 
Title: Re: How were the 2016 courses?
Post by: Seldom Seen Slim on August 24, 2016, 10:08:08 AM
Let me add that Johhnie came to visit the announce trailer and ask me to help him find a drill for his jets.  Johnnie, did you ever find that 3/16" drill?  I noticed that your run after asking for it -- showed you'd discovered a new way to make the bike go slower. :roll:
Title: Re: How were the 2016 courses?
Post by: WOODY@DDLLC on August 24, 2016, 10:35:00 AM
The SCTA did an admirable job with what little mother nature gave them to work with.  :cheers: IMHO, the track was not race ready for all out efforts. Some, as always, had some success but would have done much better with a better track. While shredding tires may look and sound cool - not really the safest way to race!  :-( When we have to drill pilot holes for tent stakes, have a ten mile oval and can race jet cars again I will consider the salt restored!  :x :x :x [Probably not in my lifetime - if ever!]
Title: Re: How were the 2016 courses?
Post by: Stainless1 on August 24, 2016, 10:40:07 AM
Chris, I marked fair, we ran, set a record, but had a spin, constantly tightened bolts that rattled loose.  But I could not mark it poor because we ran, set a record....
The courses were what they were... they have been better and they have been worse.  
A little rain would help them, I think they might have dried too fast this year  :cheers:
Title: Re: How were the 2016 courses?
Post by: dw230 on August 24, 2016, 10:42:02 AM
What is the point of the poll?. In the end how is it going to change anything?

DW
Title: Re: How were the 2016 courses?
Post by: rouse on August 24, 2016, 11:43:59 AM
Let me add that Johhnie came to visit the announce trailer and ask me to help him find a drill for his jets.  Johnnie, did you ever find that 3/16" drill?  I noticed that your run after asking for it -- showed you'd discovered a new way to make the bike go slower. :roll:

For a H-D Fatboy I was happy, we had to license up from scratch again, I wanted to get my "C" Current. So we stared out at 148, then 157 then 164, and then rest of our runs were over 170. I ended up with a 175 sticker on the handlebars, and a "B" License, and yes we found the drill (thanks to your announcement Jon,) and we qualified against the class record @ nearly 178. We didn't back that up thou, not because of the race course, but because we nicked the engine a little on the qualifying  run, new rings will fix that thou. So all and all a good Speed Week.
Thanks again for helping find that drill bit. I'll add a little more fuel the next time I drill that jet bigger :roll:

Rouse
Title: Re: How were the 2016 courses?
Post by: Milwaukee Midget on August 24, 2016, 12:36:37 PM
What is the point of the poll?. In the end how is it going to change anything?

DW

Hi, Dan -

Ideally, it should condense the consensus view expressed by members of the forum who choose to participate.  The method and sample size is probably going to be inadequate to perform that function with any verifiability, but it also serves to further the discussion.

All accounts indicate that SCTA-BNI did a great job with the hand they were dealt.  In the end, and speaking personally, any change I would like to see would be action on the part of the BLM to assure the volunteers and racers a better surface to start with.  Collecting testimonials and comments here may or may not change anything.

Chris
Title: Re: How were the 2016 courses?
Post by: desotoman on August 24, 2016, 06:03:44 PM
I wonder -- if these comments are being seen and digested by Utah Alliance folks so that the information can be sent on to those legislators and others that were visiting the salt last week.  Anybody know?

Good point but IMO we cannot rely on other people to do our work, so with that said please go to this page   http://www.save-the-salt.org/take-action/   and you can find your representative’s contact info. Send them the same information you have talked about on this Topic and let them know the salt flats are not getting better and are still deteriorating.

That is what I am doing.

Tom G.
Title: Re: How were the 2016 courses?
Post by: lvsalt on August 24, 2016, 08:52:49 PM

  Talked to a nurse today about my blood red eyeball, its a broken blood vessel and it should be back to normal in a week or so, No treatment needed, eye will heal itself, just looks bad. She thinks, and so do I, that it's a result of the car shaking so much. It was terrible, and we have full stock car products  suspension in front and coil overs in back set fairly soft. I had to turn out.

              JL222


   I must of hit the same bumps you did, my head got rattled pretty good also, no broken blood vessels though. I gps at 180mph when i hit the bad stuff. Hope your eye heals quick.
Title: Re: How were the 2016 courses?
Post by: will6er on August 24, 2016, 09:58:01 PM
I ended up with loose nuts and a loose and wallowed-out upper control arm mount which shortened my week.

Will Willis
#6302
Title: Re: How were the 2016 courses?
Post by: edinlr on August 24, 2016, 11:51:01 PM
When I pulled off after a bad run on the short course, I noticed that the salt had peeled away from the dirt surface underneath.  The salt was about 1/2 to 3/4 of an inch thick at most.  It seems I remember people talking about when it was measured in feet, not fractions of an inch.

Also, I noticed that I did not have nearly as much salt accumulating on my bike, trailer, and truck as I did in 2013, I guess this was due to it being much drier this year.
Title: Re: How were the 2016 courses?
Post by: Bob Drury on August 25, 2016, 01:08:49 AM
   I spent quite a bit of time on Sunday and Monday in the staging lanes of both the long and short courses.  On the short course one of the starting line workers was walking vehicle to vehicle the first ten cars +or_ in each lane telling each driver "its really loose out there.
  Talking to several drivers on the long course they were less kind... on the throttle, off the throttle, on the throttle , off the throttle the whole way.
  One of My friends roadster which I built the chassis on I finally said to Him " next pass after the second on/off throttle turn out for Christ's sake Your just beating the shit out of the car and probably over reving the motor".   The problem is that We all have waited three years for this and I think We tend to think the Salt is going to miraculously get better.  From My standpoint the lack of wind and smokey skies from the wildfire down near Ely doomed the Salt drying more.
  When we left lands end and dropped down on the salt Friday Morning, within the next 1/4 mile I could see how the salt was already rutting up and I always drive wide of the Oklahoma Land Rushers to kind of get a feel for the salt.
  Of the several Studebakers that I have given advice to over the last seventeen years this is number one rule.  All Ballast between front and rear axles.
                                                                                                                                                                  No ballast behind rear axle...ever
                                                                                                                                                                   All ballast low as possible
                                                                                                                                                                   Make ballast racks easy to access
                                                                                                                                                                    What works today may not tomorrow
                                                                                                                                                                    add ballast until the wheels don't spin in High gear
                                                                                                                                                                     the damper the salt the more ballast You Need
                                                                                                                                                                     On a sedan start out 50/50 front rear and go from there
   If you come the next year and the salt is firm and dry  pull a couple hundred pounds and make a half pass.  That's enough for a good spark plug reading and to figure out where the weight needs to be.  If the car is nosing around you need more to the front... if it doesn't respond to steering input  shift more to the rear.
  And if You are a newby please realize you steer with the throttle, NOT the steering wheel.
   I run My 53 Stude coupe (238 mph) at 5200 # (one ton of ballast)  Macdonald and Pitts 311 mph Firebird  and Dave Davidsons 307 mph roadster each weigh in at or near 6200#
Title: Re: How were the 2016 courses?
Post by: SPARKY on August 25, 2016, 09:52:14 AM
Was over at Mr. Bills place yesterday--where Al Eshenbaugh holds forth---Fast Freddy D. dropped by and dropped off his liners damaged alum. nose, that was hare lipped on long course at around the 4 at about 280, for Al to massage back to respectability.

he said he hit some rough stuff-- there was a loud BANG---he clicked it off and put out the chutes automatically---he thought he had killed the engine---
When others came up to the car they asked him what he had hit--that he had flying parts left on the course--turns out it was the front part of the belly pan that had broken off the nose piece.

The crazy part he was the one dragging the long course-- leaving it best he could aided by his many years of experience doing so.

The salt just was not there to do any better job on providing a good coarse---his coarse --hair lipped his car--that is not poetic justice at all.
Title: Re: How were the 2016 courses?
Post by: Ro Yale on August 28, 2016, 11:39:44 PM
I'm just damn grateful I got to make some runs. We didn't have all our ducks in a row so it was a great experience for us. Thanks to everyone involved including all the spectators I saw there.
Title: Re: How were the 2016 courses?
Post by: Roadster943 on August 30, 2016, 10:56:46 PM
   It was great to be able too run and be with friends.  I came much closer to spinning than I ever have or ever want to again. Went out and tried it a second time on a fresh course to see if it was a fluke, it wasn't, same result, chute out before the 3. Picked up the wire on the long course Friday and looked closely at the course and saw the reason. Worst conditions since 05. Still glad I was there and ran. just hope for better next time.
Title: Re: How were the 2016 courses?
Post by: TugBoat123 on August 31, 2016, 06:46:45 AM
I don't have any experience to reflect upon, as 2016 was my rookie year, but on the last day (Friday) they had all the tracks shut down except for the long track. I shut down after roughly 2.25 miles. I hit a couple dips/bumps in the track and it made me uncomfortable. I decided I was finished. Putting my foot into the gas pedal felt great, but I had to give up after those couple of bumps. It was a great year though. New car. My dad (the car builder/owner/primary driver) got to drive it a decent amount. 4 people got licensed using it. I can't complain. Let's pray the salt stays solid. Thanks to all the folks who work so hard to make the event a possibility.
Title: Re: How were the 2016 courses?
Post by: TugBoat123 on August 31, 2016, 07:04:34 AM
One more thing. Some people commented on the road from the pits up to the starting lines, and the return roads. I totally agree. I sat in the car and steered it many times as it was being towed down those roads. I got thrown around like crazy. I had my head smashed into the top of the roll cage multiple times throughout the week. When I got back to Michigan, the extent of my bruises was revealed. My body was covered in bruises from the abuse I took while the car was being towed. It is an unsprung lakester. I'm afraid the car took a beating more than I did. We are going to build a tow-dolly-like device for next year. I want at least the front wheels off the ground. I don't want somebody sitting in that car steering it and running the brakes. Too much pain and trouble. If this year was any kind of a sign, next year will be rough too. I'm just happy there is salt to run on though.
Title: Re: How were the 2016 courses?
Post by: SPARKY on August 31, 2016, 08:34:47 AM
 :cheers:
Title: Re: How were the 2016 courses?
Post by: Stan Back on August 31, 2016, 10:58:57 AM
"If this year was any kind of a sign, next year will be rough too."

I don't think it works that way.  Every year is different and unpredictable.  Even from meet  to meet during the same year.
Title: Re: How were the 2016 courses?
Post by: Milwaukee Midget on August 31, 2016, 02:01:53 PM
"If this year was any kind of a sign, next year will be rough too."

I don't think it works that way.  Every year is different and unpredictable.  Even from meet  to meet during the same year.

I'd go as far as to say hour to hour.  WOS 2014 had me in the same queue line, but on two entirely different tracks.
Title: Re: How were the 2016 courses?
Post by: rouse on August 31, 2016, 04:23:22 PM
That's what I've seen too, day to day you may have a good guess, but further out than that is impossible.

Rouse
Title: Re: How were the 2016 courses?
Post by: Seldom Seen Slim on September 24, 2016, 08:44:43 PM
Perhaps a final note on the conditions at SW this year:

Yes, honey, I really DID clean and lube everything before we left for the salt"
Title: Re: How were the 2016 courses?
Post by: Stainless1 on September 24, 2016, 09:01:43 PM
SSS, didn't Nancy tell ya you don't have to remove your balls just because they get a little rusty....  :cheers:
Title: Re: How were the 2016 courses?
Post by: salt27 on September 24, 2016, 09:24:37 PM
SSS, Don't forget the rear door hinges on your trailer.   :roll:

Your truck should still be rust proofed from the Salt Talks barbeque grease.   :-D
Title: Re: How were the 2016 courses?
Post by: Seldom Seen Slim on September 24, 2016, 09:33:02 PM
I haven't forgot 'em, Don.  I also haven't dared open the rear door and use it for more than loading sailboat fuel and some post holes.  I'm cleaning it up and getting ready to sell it. :cry:
Title: Re: How were the 2016 courses?
Post by: saltwheels262 on September 24, 2016, 10:35:28 PM
Perhaps a final note on the conditions at SW this year:

Yes, honey, I really DID clean and lube everything before we left for the salt"

No air compressor that far north?
Title: Re: How were the 2016 courses?
Post by: salt27 on September 24, 2016, 10:37:26 PM
I haven't forgot 'em, Don.  I also haven't dared open the rear door and use it for more than loading sailboat fuel and some post holes.  I'm cleaning it up and getting ready to sell it. :cry:

Jon, if you have any extra post holes I could sure use them.

I have some fence that needs replaced.    :-D

It sure doesn't seem that long ago that you bought that trailer. 

  Don