2013 SCTA-BNI rulebook addendum

[dw230]

I have asked Jon to post the addendum to the rulebook on the front page of the site.

You can also find this on the www.scta-bni.org website, front page, left side at the bottom.

Thank you,
DW

[Seldom Seen Slim]

And indeed, it'll get on the front page -- as soon as 1and1, our hosting service, gets things running right again.  The was an "issue" last night -- that seems to be okay now.  In the meantime -- I'll get the addendum posted poste haste.  I hope.

[Stainless1]

Dan, our team does not hold the M-G 1000 record at 208.959 as listed in the addendum... although that number would stand for a really long time.  We have the A-G at 182 as listed in the regular book.  Our 208 record was in APS-G under the old PS rules.

Does the chop rule outlaw the Blowfish?

[dw230]

Thanks Stainless - I will make sure the database is correct. This will NEVER be correct, and I don't know why.

How far back do you want to go to make cars illegal, 1949?

DW

[Stan Back]

"The front and rear chop shall be equal. The upper and lower location of the A, B and/or C pillar locations must be in the original OEM location and the A pillar must be OEM width. A top chop by definition alters the contour of the vehicle. Windshields and windows may be flush mounted per class rules on either the inside or outside of location of the original glass."

Help me understand this.  I read it to mean that the upper pillars must remain in the exact "roof" location where they started.  So any car made, say 1934 or newer, with slanting front and/or rear pillars must retain the top roof dimension -- fore and aft.  So the A, B and C pillars must be re-angled to meet their original top locations.  And the windshield would have to be stood up from its original angle to meet this requirement.

No horse in this race.  Just wondering what the horses are supposed to look like.  And there's no doubt I may have read more into this than is there.

Stan 

[Bob Drury]

  I, like Stan, don't have a horse either but "of course" do have a opinion.
  My one problem with our Rule Book IS AND HAS BEEN FOR THE LAST FIFTEEN YEARS that although it is over all a well written and consice guide to building a race vehicle, it remains lacking in technical scetch's such as the helmet restraint rule, the window replacement and attachment rule, etc.
  While I understand the complexity of any one rule or explaination covering all classes, I would ask (again) that no rules be implemented with ambiguous or (often) any scetch's or reference points that can be easily understood.
  I would also (once again) like to never again see any rule enacted requiring change in products or useage without advising the entrant a well defined product or source of what meets the proposed new rule (think windows).
  A few simple scetch's can be worth a thousand word's and maybe save the tech folk's a lot of needless evening phone calls from us Dummies.
                                                                                               
                                                                                             Bob

[Stainless1]

It was just a question, not trying to start something again...

No Dan, I would not remove any car records that meet the rules when set.... but any new records should be set with cars that are in compliance.  So does this rule only apply to new builds and all currently running cars grandfathered in or do the rules apply to all.

Remember the thing I've said before... every new rule not made for safety puts someone at an advantage or disadvantage... 

[BIGHORN]

PPV Bsa @ 302 mph? is that with a JATO bottle?

[Stainless1]

Bighorn, I merged your topic into this one so we don't have several.