Something to discuss while we wait for good salt?

[tallguy]

Let's "extrapolate" a bit, shall we, and consider a land speed vehicle that is
pushed to about 300 mph, and then accelerates through the measured
mile for an "official average speed" (for that run) of 310 mph.

If this were allowed, then the vehicle would need relatively little fuel, and would
sustain relatively little wear in the drive train.

Where am I going with this, you may ask. . .

I know there are some "purists" that believe that all competing vehicles in
land speed racing should be wheel-driven -- that "it isn't really a car if it
has a jet engine".

Well, various individuals certainly have various opinions and definitions.  As
far as I'm concerned, if it's self-propelled and has 4 wheels that normally touch
the ground in typical use, the vehicle can legitimately be called a car.  Just
my opinion on this.

More broadly speaking, I suggest that if it carries its own system of propulsion,
then it could be considered an "automobile" of some sort, even if it has
fewer than 4 wheels.  Now, I don't have any major gripe about separate
classes, such as those distinguishing bikes from cars, or gasoline-powered
vehicles from alcohol-powered vehicles.  It's good to have various classes,
so even poor people can race and set records.  Yeah, there is some
cherry-picking going on.  I don't have a big problem with that.

What's been concerning me for decades, though, is this idea of "push-starting"
ANY land speed vehicles.  I think every one of them should be required to provide
all its own motivation, i.e., without any pushing.  And by the way, it appears
to me that the 40 mph "pushing speed limit" seems arbitrary and not enforced.

Yeah, it may be difficult to modify vehicles to this standard.  But it seems weird
to me to not require that a vehicle start, go, and stop by its own (self-contained)
mechanisms.

The way (I think) the rules are now, a really slow race vehicle could conceivably be
pushed -- from the zero almost all the way to the first trap (3 mile mark?) before
exceeding 40 mph under its own power.  Seems weird, again, and impractical.

Whaddaya think about all this (at least from a logical or emotional point of view)?

I'm not on a major crusade here, folks.  Just offering something to discuss.  

And I have some other questions to ask later (that may also ruffle some feathers).

And no, I'm not trying to be a troublemaker.  I like you all, and wish you all the best,
including GREAT SALT as soon as possible!

[dw230]

The push vehicle must release the racer by 1/4 mile. Look in the Tribal Knowledge Handbook.

DW

[Milwaukee Midget]

Regarding a push, here's the deal, as I see it -

I think the push start has a lot going for it, both with regard to safety and vehicular longevity.

What we're looking at is a speed through a measured mile.

With a wheel driven car, often laden with a lot of ballast, and often running gearing that is astronomically low, the clutch and the surface becomes the issue.

Crack open a 6000 lb Studebaker with 2.14 gears and 1500 hp, and something is going to give.

If the clutch or drive shaft goes, then you're out of the running.  If the salt takes the abuse, then you build ruts in the track - an issue that makes launching for other vehicles a problem.  If it's an option allowed all cars - which it is now - then no advantage is given any vehicle over the other, and things remain fair to all competitors.

In short, you get a softer, safer launch with a push.

As to rockets and jets, well, yes, they are cool.  But if a rocket engine or jet engine powered vehicle is involved in an accident, there is a potential for the engine to separate from the rest of the vehicle, potentially causing two accident locations.  True, it won't get far without fuel, but once up to speed, it wouldn't take but what fuel is left in the lines to turn the engine into an uncontrolled projectile, headed in the last direction it was pointed.

I'd love to see a rocket/jet event on the salt, but the precautions that would be necessary to safely do this are, in my opinion, beyond the desires of the current sanctioning bodies, and new protocols would need to be put into place.

I know I wouldn't want to be in line behind The Green Monster . . .

[donpearsall]

Speaking of push starts, I think both SCTA and AMA have prohibitions against push and/or tow starting motorcycles. Why? If it is OK for cars why not motorcycles??
Don

[RichFox]

I think in a push start, I can just see the car pushing the bike to 40 mph. The bike fires and pulls about a foot away from the car or truck. It stumbles and loses fire. Or blows something and locks the engine, the bike goes down. just sounds bad. Towed starts. Don't know,but I bet it has to do with some near disaster in the past.

[Elmo Rodge]

OK. My 69 year old brain fails me. Which car is (was) yours Tall Guy?  Just trying to figure out where this is coming from.  Wayno

[sofadriver]

Speaking of push starts, I think both SCTA and AMA have prohibitions against push and/or tow starting motorcycles. Why? If it is OK for cars why not motorcycles??
Don

because I keep falling down! 

[donpearsall]

Mike, your bike lays you 2 inches from the ground. It is impossible for you to fall down!
Don

[Robin UK]

Push starts have been going on forever - check out old videos of John Cobb in the Napier Railton. If it was that much of a problem I think they would have been banned by now. In fact, as the existing replies have shown, there are many good reasons for allowing push/tow starts up to low speeds. I also reckon that the whole process would be self policing if anybody did anything completely out of order. Just my view.

Robin

[kiwi belly tank]

There have been a few spooky push jobs go down over the years, I believe Summers Bros used two vehicles at one time. Vesco's used a blown BBC CJ5 Jeep back when they were running the turbo'd Offy's in the liner & I pushed Jim Feuling's Oldmobile over 100 mph back in 88 or 89 at a private meet. Then there was the bicycle behind the streamliner thing.
  Sid.

[tallguy]

Elmo, (so far) I don't have a race vehicle.  But I'm a big fan of land speed racing
and all the people involved with it. 

What I read makes a lot of sense to me (regarding reasons for push starts).  I
don't have a major problem with it.  I was just a bit curious, and "trying to act
like a purist of sorts" .

Good luck to everyone!  And thanks for all your postings!

[will6er]

Back in the '50s , the Kenz and Lesle team used 4 push vehicles at one time. I've only seen a movie of them using 2, but the story was related by someone who drove the roadster push vehicle

Will Willis
#6302

[kiwi belly tank]

What a cluster that must have been, ah... the good ol dayz.
  Sid.

[Stainless1]

The race car accelerates much faster than the push vehicle once you get it to a speed that it can pull it's own weight... the faster you get it there, in the least amount of race course, is in your best interest to get the maximum speed out of your vehicle.
That is why you use the most HP in your push... get to pull off speed quickly so the car has lots of race course.
IIRC The push limit was put in after a roadster with a top fuel motor pushed past the mile so the motor would last... That was back in the 3 run days, I remember watching them throw in a set of pistons and rods for the return.
YMMV (your memory/mileage may vary) 

[John Burk]

"The race car accelerates much faster than the push vehicle"

In 1960 when Tom Beatty pushed Art Arfons streamliner with his 40 sedan delivery with the blown stroker Olds motor . As Art "pulled away" Tom pulled alongside so Art's crewman could film it . Tom told us about that while he had the sedan delivery up on the lift In Wendover to check everything underneath before he was heading home . Who needs to do that now days .