Vintage Engines & new rules clarification??

[4-barrel Mike]

Page 15, vintage engine restrictions will now read (I think):

1.  No turbochargers are permitted.  //2006
2.  Computers are allowed for data collection purposes only.  //2006
3.  Electronic Fuel Injection prohibited.  //new
4.  Any ignition system may be used.  //new

Does number 4 completely override number 2?  I.e., MSD (and other) ignition boxes with "programmable" timing are legal?

Thanks.

Mike

[dwarner]

How does "programable timing" fit into data collection?

DW

[RichFox]

Mike; It is my understanding that turbochargers are allowed on vintage engines as long as they are in non-vintage bodies. As a turbocharged 270 GMC would be legal in a Vega running XO/BGAlt but not legal in a '32 Ford running in XXO/VGAlt. Believe me, I have had some experiance interpiting these rules.

[desotoman]

Not trying to be a smart ass honestly, but some traction control devices could be considered programable timing, and they are legal across the board since they cannot be detected. So what would really be the difference?

Tom G.

[Dynoroom]

Not trying to follow in Toms footsteps but if a "vintage engine" needs traction control, go for it. It will just make the parts more vintage.

[4-barrel Mike]

How does "programable timing" fit into data collection?

DW

I apologize if I'm coming across the wrong way, but, being new to this phase of automobiles, I see a conflict with #2 & #4: how can you allow "any ignition system", when many use microprocessors, but also say "computers are alllowed for data collection purposes only"?

Rich:  I was lazy (left out the vintage bodies part).

I also left out traction control, which is way beyond my experience or needs, but isn't it also allowed and usually computer controlled?

Mike

[desotoman]

How does "programable timing" fit into data collection?

DW

I also left out traction control, which is way beyond my experience or needs, but isn't it also allowed and usually computer controlled?

Mike

Mike,
   From what I have read you don't need a computer for traction control. Some companys are able to do it right off the MSD units. Some even have remote units that are smaller than a cigarette lighter that the drivers hide on themselves and it talks to the Ignition box some how. These units both retard the spark. So my point was if these units are allowed, now that traction control is legal, why not allow programable ignition, since in a sense that is what the traction control units I have describe are doing. Like I said I am not trying to be a smart ass, but how can you allow one and not allow the other.
Tom G.

[dwarner]

For some reason I am still stuck on the "download" part of 2.R

DW

[ddahlgren]

turbos have been around since 1910 or so..
an MSD digital 7 and an Electro-motive are 'any ignition systems' or are they?
transistors used for the switching are a much more modern device than turbos are. 1950's stuff.
I have no dog in this one but thought a little historical perspective might be interesting.
Dave

[RidgeRunner]

     Looooong way from getting into one of these classes [still have a few flatmotor breathing ideas to try out if we ever get a couple of other projects running].

     How do you determine/enforce the difference between an ignition box, a "management computer", and "download only" components?  Starting to look like the Vintage classes will have to be opened up a bit [much as I hate to see the original vintage intent diluted] as a matter of practicality [tech/impound inspectors shouldn't have to go nuts on a volunteer job takeing any increased static].  Way I justify it in my mind is it's just one more payment in the price of progress, makes all the older records more meaningfull whether they survive into new books or not.

[dwarner]

"Starting to look like the Vintage classes will have to be opened up a bit [much as I hate to see the original vintage intent diluted] "

How about making it simpler - do the opposite of the above quote.

DW

[RichFox]

On my V4 and the GMC engines I have run, I managed to stay away from ignition controversy by using Points and condenser type ignition or a Vertex. Just like the old days. Sort of Vintage I thought. I see no reason why this cannot be the rule for these motors. Easy to inspect.

[4-barrel Mike]

On my V4 and the GMC engines I have run, I managed to stay away from ignition controversy by using Points and condenser type ignition or a Vertex. Just like the old days. Sort of Vintage I thought. I see no reason why this cannot be the rule for these motors. Easy to inspect.

This has been my intent to some extent.  However, after purchasing a "good" Scintilla/Vertex, sending it to Joe Hunt for rebuild & being told that rebuild cost would be more than the cost for a new one (way over budget either way), I may end up with a points distributor and an MSD 6AL (legal, right?) or similar, which is what I'm running on the street.

I am curious, though: what is the intent of the "any ignition system" rules change?

Mike

[RichFox]

I don't know about why the rules got changed. Someone who has the ear of the rules makers wanted them changed, I guess. When I had the 2000 Pinto in my roadster, it would run around 8000 rpm with the stock distributer. When I put the Lotus 907 in it it would run faster with a simular distributer. Had to be around 8600 out the end to go 142. So I knew it would be plenty good enough for my '32 Plymouth. When I went to the flathead version of the Ply. I wanted to make the twin ignition deal. No real plan, just wanted to. But it could be phased to fire an eight cylinder motor just fine and each coil would think it was seeing a four cylinder. Spalding Flame Thrower duel coil type deal. I had a MSD on the 460 in my Vega once and it failed at Bonneville. So I bought a stock replacement coil in Wendover and converted back to stock. Went 197.975 with a single four barrel. Decided I didn't need MSD

[dwarner]

I'll agree that this was not one of my favorite rules for 2007. I think the best place to get an answer is from the Vintage Category chairpersons. I understand that all the different committees were polled and the resulting new rules are the outcome of that poll.

DW