Author Topic: Rule change for additional spill plates  (Read 13988 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline NathanStewart

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1241
Re: Rule change for additional spill plates
« Reply #15 on: August 27, 2014, 04:22:09 PM »
Junk, one thing to remember.  Tech/safety inspection and body class inspection for record cert or class legality are not the same.  If you pass safety tech then you get to run.  If something is possibly illegal with your body, then it'll come up if you qualify for a record.  Lots of guys run for fun and won't ever set a record so it really doesn't matter.  If you're gunnin' for a record though, you better be sure to be out of those grey areas. 

Ed, submit a protest and then a decision will be made. 
El Mirage 200 MPH Club Member

Offline Sumner

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4078
  • Blanding, Ut..a small dot in the middle of nowhere
    • http://purplesagetradingpost.com/sumner/sumnerindex.html
Re: Rule change for additional spill plates
« Reply #16 on: August 27, 2014, 04:38:47 PM »
I am interested in this also.  I am in the process of building a new comp coupe and never considered having the "stabilizers"(cuzz they are not spill plates). When building my roadster I asked and was told no stabilizers so I went a different route.  However I see roadsters with stabilizers,  have they just not been called out on it?  Same thing here have these examples shown just not been called on it yet?  I try to stay within the "spirit" of a class while still taking every opportunity to build a fast car. 

Why not take advantage of the new 'wings are allowed' rule in comp coupe.  The wing can be any size and the stabilizers can be huge.  I wouldn't think about not taking advantage of this if I was building a car that was going to run over 200.  The only downside is a little more drag and if designed right we are talking about very little compared to the rest of the drag for a comp coupe,

Sum

Offline Eddieschopshop

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 248
Re: Rule change for additional spill plates
« Reply #17 on: August 27, 2014, 04:39:51 PM »
It's not a big enough deal to me to make a fuss over in that particular area.  I feel it is not ruled out by current wording. I just did something different to not be in the grey since I was told no.  A bigger concern for me is the modifications done to rear wheel wells in coupes.  I have been told you can make an access panel to remove rear tire. But it seems a few are taking advantage and recon touring at the same time. My current project would definitely benefit from some contouring here but my interpretation is that is illegal. I will keep the original body shape to be legal and avoid protest and costly fixes.

Offline Eddieschopshop

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 248
Re: Rule change for additional spill plates
« Reply #18 on: August 27, 2014, 04:41:10 PM »
I have been thinking along those lines Sum.  That's the thought process I went through on my roadster

Offline xxobuick

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 77
Re: Rule change for additional spill plates
« Reply #19 on: August 27, 2014, 06:10:40 PM »
Rules are generally to show what is NOT allowed.  Not generally to show what is allowed.  This is pretty much true no matter where you go.  Laws in your town, rules at the race track, etc.  If something is not allowed, it needs to be spelled out.  Same as when saltcat got their record taken away for the port issue.  The rules said, any modification to a stock head is allowed except in PRO classes.  Well we all know how that turned out......

Offline lsrjunkie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 922
Re: Rule change for additional spill plates
« Reply #20 on: August 27, 2014, 06:23:58 PM »
I feel a storm a brewin'...

Records are great, and who wouldn't want one of those snazzy red hats to wear? As long as I get to run my car, have a little fun and maybe set a record or two in the process that's just fine with me. I'm sure there are some out there that just want a record. Nothing wrong with that mentality just as there's nothing wrong with wanting to have a little fun by driving really fast.

If I can be a part of the great history of Bonneville in my own little way, I'll wear one of those little hats with a propeller on it and a spandex union suit, if that's what the SCTA says I need to do to run.

Life is usually about playing by somebody's rules, good, bad, or otherwise. At least here we have the opportunity to change the rules from time to time.

IMHO

WOW! We have veered off topic just a wee bit. Sorry about the jack jl222.
Maybe there is no Heaven. Or maybe this is all pure gibberish. The product of a demented hill billy who has found a way to live out where the winds blow. To sleep late, have fun, drink whiskey, and drive fast on empty streets with nothing in mind except falling in love or getting arrested.    H.S. Thompson

Offline Dynoroom

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2192
Re: Rule change for additional spill plates
« Reply #21 on: August 27, 2014, 06:37:10 PM »
And then after the rules committee meeting this same group of online typists will bash the guys who made the changes or not at said meeting. If it was so easy we wouldn't have a couple of pages with different opinions.

Then there's the headlight thread.......    :evil:

That's why the SCTA has a rule change procedure and then it goes to the clubs to be voted on. If everyone had their voice on a proposed rule change it would never get done.

Carry on John, sorry for the hijack. Best of luck on your proposal.   :cheers:
Michael LeFevers
Kugel and LeFevers Pontiac Firebird

Without Data You're Just Another Guy With An Opinion!

Racing is just a series of "Problem Solving" events that allow you to spend money & make noise...

Nick Flores

  • Guest
Re: Rule change for additional spill plates
« Reply #22 on: August 27, 2014, 09:50:48 PM »
You have to admit Nathan,  that Smoky Yunick would have a field day with this rulebook.


And it seems that lots of new guys think they're Smokey Yunick. 


Not my point. There are big wide grey areas in the SCTA rulebook. That's all I was trying to say. Unless (and until) there are clearly defined guidelines, there will be guys exploiting the lack thereof. I enjoy this form of racing because it allows for innovation with rare, vintage, and unique equipment. I could just as easily field a NASCAR, but that is not as rewarding as taking the old iron we (our team) like to run and maximizing its potential.

You may have noticed that Bryan (xxobuick) and I are on this forum, asking questions quite often. We don't do that because we like to bend, break, or mangle the rules. Its because in our day to day lives, not following the rules will quite literally make you dead in a big hurry.

Have you seen a NASCAR rulebook? I'm not trying to be rude with this question. The SCTA rulebook is light reading in comparison. 

Offline maguromic

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1736
    • http://www.barringtontea.com
Re: Rule change for additional spill plates
« Reply #23 on: August 28, 2014, 12:25:25 AM »
I don't know what all the rucuss about the rule book is. After a few rules issues I thought rule 1.A addressed all this.  By the way the 2013 NASCAR rule book is 192 pages and not bad reading http://nascarbot.xp3.biz/2013%20Rulebook.pdf

Just curious do some SCTA members still bring bats to the rules meetings?  :-o :-o :-o

Now lets get back to the original post about spill plates.  Tony
“If you haven’t seen the future, you are not going fast enough”

Offline Eddieschopshop

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 248
Re: Rule change for additional spill plates
« Reply #24 on: August 28, 2014, 01:07:55 AM »
I went back and did some more reading just to verify my understanding of the spill plate rule.   I would argue that it is actually fairly clear as written.  Nowhere does it discuss stabilizers (that is what these are, unless someone can explain otherwise) in my opinion.  It discusses spill plates at the ends of the spoiler and what the dimensions may be.  Unless it is specifically allowed under the rules I feel it falls under the "no other modification" portion of the rules.  In classes where you have to work around a stock body the rules say what you can do in the way of modifications and anything not listed as an exception (such as wing belly pan etc) isn't allowed right?   These are not spill plates by anyway of the definition,  and the only way I could even begin to justify them as part of the spoiler would be to say they stiffen it structurally,  but this could be done underneath and out of the air flow.  So I cannot justify them being part of the spoiler. 

 

Offline jl222

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2955
Re: Rule change for additional spill plates
« Reply #25 on: August 28, 2014, 01:11:16 AM »
  Rule change summited  :-P

  Basically calling for additional plates along spoiler inside of now allowed end plates. following existing specs.

 Also stating care should be used to make sure bottom of plates [if used] does't interfere with parachute opening.

                  JL222

Offline revolutionary

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 565
Re: Rule change for additional spill plates
« Reply #26 on: August 28, 2014, 01:28:51 AM »
Good job.
Breaking Wind #9614
  ECTA Record AA/BGALT 214.8
  SCTA Bonneville PB AA/BGALT 237.4
Breaking Wind "Spirit of Effluvium" #451
  SCTA Bonneville Record SC/BF100 48.931

Offline NathanStewart

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1241
Re: Rule change for additional spill plates
« Reply #27 on: August 28, 2014, 01:59:04 AM »
Not much more can be said about fins. Should they be allowed? Sure, why not? If they're to be allowed then give 'em some spec limits. Hopefully the submitted wording is up to snuff.

Rule 1a applies to tech inspection just like it says. Body class stuff doesn't apply to tech. If a competitor has a beef with a tech inspector about something, the wording in the book is king.  But again, following the rule which says we must follow the words in the book, this only applies to tech inspection.

It looks like a majority of the NASCAR rule book is procedural BS.  What the NASCAR rule book has to do with dry lakes racing is beyond me. I'd imagine that writing rules for a racing organization where every single car is exactly the same is probably pretty easy versus writing general rules that are to be applied to any possible car imaginable.  I'm also guessing that the NASCAR rule book was written by a fleet of lawyers. The scta rule book was written by a handful of racers. 

It feels a lot less like you're asking genuine questions some times and a whole lot more like you want to point out that other people are doing things that you've been told are illegal and that's pretty lame IMO. Yes, the scta rules aren't as tight as you think they should be, we get it. You ask about running alt in this thread and you say the rule book is a problem. Mike says our rule book isn't perfect and that none others are and that ours is always a work in progress to make it better to which you say that you're not complaining and just trying to learn. And now here we are again... Some old story from the xxo guys. You're just here to learn but not without taking every opportunity to point out how bad the rule book is. There's so much complaining seething out of your questions that its hard to tell what you're actually trying to do. Whatever... That's your MO. Maybe I'm the only one who notices.

Btw i was the one who submitted the re-wording of the lug nuts rule after the complaining you did last year. You're welcome.
El Mirage 200 MPH Club Member

Offline xxobuick

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 77
Re: Rule change for additional spill plates
« Reply #28 on: August 28, 2014, 02:00:57 AM »
They don't add any aero advantage do they?  Sorta like roof rails, just makes a car safer and more stable.

Offline xxobuick

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 77
Re: Rule change for additional spill plates
« Reply #29 on: August 28, 2014, 01:03:25 PM »
Not much more can be said about fins. Should they be allowed? Sure, why not? If they're to be allowed then give 'em some spec limits. Hopefully the submitted wording is up to snuff.

Rule 1a applies to tech inspection just like it says. Body class stuff doesn't apply to tech. If a competitor has a beef with a tech inspector about something, the wording in the book is king.  But again, following the rule which says we must follow the words in the book, this only applies to tech inspection.

It looks like a majority of the NASCAR rule book is procedural BS.  What the NASCAR rule book has to do with dry lakes racing is beyond me. I'd imagine that writing rules for a racing organization where every single car is exactly the same is probably pretty easy versus writing general rules that are to be applied to any possible car imaginable.  I'm also guessing that the NASCAR rule book was written by a fleet of lawyers. The scta rule book was written by a handful of racers. 

It feels a lot less like you're asking genuine questions some times and a whole lot more like you want to point out that other people are doing things that you've been told are illegal and that's pretty lame IMO. Yes, the scta rules aren't as tight as you think they should be, we get it. You ask about running alt in this thread and you say the rule book is a problem. Mike says our rule book isn't perfect and that none others are and that ours is always a work in progress to make it better to which you say that you're not complaining and just trying to learn. And now here we are again... Some old story from the xxo guys. You're just here to learn but not without taking every opportunity to point out how bad the rule book is. There's so much complaining seething out of your questions that its hard to tell what you're actually trying to do. Whatever... That's your MO. Maybe I'm the only one who notices.

Btw i was the one who submitted the re-wording of the lug nuts rule after the complaining you did last year. You're welcome.



When did we say the rule book was bad?

The re-wording of the lug nuts was because the rule book was way to vague.  Now it is clear as day, with just two words added.  Now there is no more confusion.  That's what the original thread starter of this thread is trying to achieve also.  Just to make it to where it is clear as day. 


As to your statement:

It feels a lot less like you're asking genuine questions some times and a whole lot more like you want to point out that other people are doing things that you've been told are illegal and that's pretty lame IMO.

What we ask is the legality of things as we would want to do the same sort of things but then the rule book says you cant, or it doesn't say you can and therefore we come on here to get others opinions.  We research what others have been doing (your dads advice on how to go about things is to look at what other cars have and have done to get ideas) and then we go from there.

Our MO is to learn, race fast and safely all at the same time, and then try and get a record in the mean time.  That's it.  Whatever you perceive beyond that is simply that, what you perceive.  Sorry you feel this way.