Author Topic: Outrage at El Mirage  (Read 10903 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline RichFox

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2663
Re: Outrage at El Mirage
« Reply #15 on: June 11, 2012, 06:53:40 PM »
Since I didn't run the car no note was made in my log book. I have been running that car with a 4 cylinder engine since 84 or 85. The issue has come up before. As I said, it has always been decided that the rule was written with V8 engines in mind. Before the roadster, I always used 2 nozzles on the GMC engine. And of course on the V8s that I have used. It's only a minor annoyance installing a second nozzle on a T with the existing one. Like I said. I like continuity. I get used to it. I think some rules are a result or expediency rather that clarity. I wish it wasn't so. If I ever get the RFTA off the ground it will be so.

Offline dw230

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3165
Re: Outrage at El Mirage
« Reply #16 on: June 11, 2012, 07:22:34 PM »
The RFTA is welcome to any old rules it wishes to use.

DW
White Goose Bar - Where LSR is a lifestyle
Alcohol - because no good story starts with a salad.

Don't be Karen, be Beth

Offline RichFox

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2663
Re: Outrage at El Mirage
« Reply #17 on: June 11, 2012, 07:54:12 PM »
Thank you Dan for that. In case there is any misunderstanding, Zenon and I were aware that the car was no longer compliant with the current roll cage rules. We had discussed different ways to remedy this. We went to the lake to find out what we could do to come up to current standards. I found the inspectors to be pleasant, competent, friendly and quite helpful in explaining what we could do. Inspection was a pleasant experience for me and I believe for the inspectors who looked at the car. No harsh words were exchanged. My concern is with the rule. Not the inspection process or the people who are doing it.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2012, 08:26:22 PM by RichFox »

Offline jimmy six

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2786
Re: Outrage at El Mirage
« Reply #18 on: June 11, 2012, 08:04:00 PM »
Rich and all: When I changed brands I did what the manufacturer said to do. As for the firewall, the first roadster I saw them on located there was W & W. Hey they were firemen and as I said when activated all liquids end up on the back of the grille shell. I can guarreennttee that. I had an oil fitting get loose and all the oil was up front; there was NONE on the firewall and the leak started 6" from the firewall.

Ken Walkeys sealed engine compartment liner caught fire one time and all the nozzles (6 or 8) around the engine were mounted level with the valve covers. The product flooded the engine compartment and the fire did minimal damage. He told me he mounted them as the instructions directed.

I understand what the rule book says and will comply but currently my exhaust system and the exit is above the pan rail and frame but I can easily add 2 more nozzles in the loop. Just something else to make sure I do prior to running next time, no big deal....JD
First GMC 6 powered Fuel roadster over 200, with 2 red hats. Pit crew for Patrick Tone's Super Stock #49 Camaro

Offline Stan Back

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5885
Re: Outrage at El Mirage
« Reply #19 on: June 11, 2012, 09:50:27 PM »
JD -- You're talking about Roadsters with blocked grille shells, right?
Past (Only) Member of the San Berdoo Roadsters -- "California's Most-Exclusive Roadster Club" -- 19 Years of Bonneville and/or El Mirage Street Roadster Records

Offline jimmy six

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2786
Re: Outrage at El Mirage
« Reply #20 on: June 12, 2012, 01:16:42 AM »
Stan...You mean you haven't bent over all the fins on your radiator with your finger to block it off?...Shame on you, oldest trick in the street roadster class.............As for the question? YES................
First GMC 6 powered Fuel roadster over 200, with 2 red hats. Pit crew for Patrick Tone's Super Stock #49 Camaro