SCTA Record Integrity

[dwarner]

Roy Creel asked me to post the following:

"My complements to Jack on his honest and candid reporting. I.E.: The fact that when Al made his historical 409 run it was on a course not available to other entrants that followed.

The SCTA/BNI rules are very explicit, a 2 mile approach to 3 timed miles on the long course; that's 4 miles to the last timed mile. A lot of us knew this when Al ran. He was allowed to back up, on both ends, to give him a greater approach. To be fair to Al his record was in fact a righteous FIA record , as they allow an unlimited approach to a physical mile/kilo timing trap. The fact that it was incorporated into our SCTA/BNI records had to do with the politics of the time. Same might be said for the Easyrider record that was set at a "Private Time" meet with no limitations on their approach.

Al knew it and a lot of others knew it, but because it was "water under the bridge", No one chose to debate it later. Probably not fair to others, but it was done.

Will it happen again? It won't if people play fair and follow the rules, but it did happen. That also is a stumbling block for intermingling the BUB motorcycle meet records into the SCTA book or Bonneville Two Club. (Except for BNI international) To my knowledge they allow a greater run up which doesn?t to compare to existing records set by the SCTA/BNI rules. Would it be fair to allow John Force to set an NHRA ET record on a 1/8-mile course or a top speed record on a 1/2-mile course? To my knowledge, all of the current records with the notable exception of the one Jack speaks of were set using the published SCTA/BNI rules. Are the SCTA/BNI rules, (which USFRA abides by) fair? I think they are.

Roy Creel, SCTA President 2002/2003"

DW

[JackD]

That is not quite historically correct.
Some time prior to the 406, the board voted to allow vehicles over an established speed be given all of the running distance that was available.
They were limited to 1 run a day at the end of the event and it was done during Speedweek.
A partial list of people you might not remember include :
Mike Cook
Ken Walky
Nolan White
Al Teague.
Danny Boy
You must remember the joke that was going around the liners back at the Highway when the Panasonic Electrick Smoker was at the zero start and the people at the Highway worried that the DC motors might run backwards on our side of the planet and come back to get us.
The details involving the Easyrider were pre-approved by the SCTA board and have a lot to do with credibility of the effort on all sides.
You selected Campos as 1 example, Vesco was 1 of many another's.
  The SCTA also benefited substantially for the insurance costs for Speedweek by piggy backing their insured days on top of the policy issued for the Easy rider attempt and thus getting a much better rate with the additional days covered.
You may remember the SCTA was not swimming in entrants money and economy was a major consideration.
Do you remember the lost El Mirage meet date because of insurance problems ?
Perhaps a better understanding of why SCTA moved from buying insurance for Speedweek from NHRA might help to explain it further.

A public forum is my favorite method for a lot of things because in part it tends to keep it honest (or you will quickly get your neck stepped on) , but I invite anyone to call me directly and I am always willing to share what I know and is appropriate.
 From there you can go on to further check the facts and do as you please.
"Why lie when the truth is so startling to so many."
Jack 
 

[Sumner]

This might not fit in here and maybe I misunderstood it at the time, but '91 was my first year on the salt and they were running both directions if you qualified for a record.
 
It was my understanding that the record had to be set in the same "physical mile", so if you qualified for a record going down in the 5th mile then you would have to average your time in the 3rd mile coming back as that was the same physical mile.

Was that correct??

If so then later when the course layout, due to decreasing salt, dictated no return runs for safety purposes (dike in the way) it was left that the record had to still be over the same physical ground, but now that could be the 5th mile on both runs.  If this is the case like today then you had an advantage since you aren't averaging a shorter run against a longer run, if this makes sense. I think in this period a lot of records fell and re-established themselves with the new procedure. 

I'm not complaining about this as changes have to be made to deal with the salt and conditions that are given to us, but I could see where some of the old guys might have felt their records were maybe taken away by a procedure change and not necessarily better equipment.  You could say the same going back further to the time when it took 3 runs and not 2 to set a record.  So I don't feel SCTA really has any explaining to do for this quote from Dan's post

Will it happen again? It won't if people play fair and follow the rules, but it did happen.

I have a question though. A few years ago when Nolan set the record at Speed Week and they were running the return record runs to the south, were they averaging the same mile of the run, or the same physical mile??

Sorry if this shouldn't be on this thread and yes Dan at BUB you get a five mile run up (if you want to use it all), and then are timed in the 6th mile, so it isn't apples to apples comparing the BUB course and the SCTA course.  Burklands, Nish, and Main ran on the BUB course and had helped to set it up earlier if I remember right.

c ya,

Sum

[JackD]

How you state it does make a difference.
FIA and FIM LSR records have always and without exception required a 2 way average within a specified time frame over the same physical distance of real estate.
That means the same ground.
There are lots of other procedural rules in LSR but we are just talking dimensions.
The SCTA Club is not bound by anything or anybody else but it's self.
The 3 run method you describe was to pair down the fields to just the qualifiers that exceeded the standing Club record.
After having qualified, the eligible entrants gathered at first light of the next running day to make their 2 way run for the real record.
All vehicles ran the same 1 track and the short course entries were allowed a 2 mile approach to the same real estate from each end.
That is to say they were timed from the 2 to the 3 after starting from the zero and from the 3 to the 2 after returning from the 5.
The over 175mph entries had all 3 timed miles available but still starting with a 2 mile approach to the first of 3 miles.
The average for them was still required to be over the same real estate .
As an aside, the bikes were usually the last to go down and the first to go back because it was felt the cars needed more time to prepare so they got it.
Most of the bikes were just as happy to get it over with but not everybody felt that way.
Remember it is not discrimination unless you are not happy with it.
An example a long course vehicle might get the fastest time from the 3 to the 4 and select the speed in that same area from the return run to establish the average.
The record was based on the average 2 runs over the same ground.
The important thing is that SCTA later decided to change their policy and credit vehicles with the speed recorded in the same relative distance from the starting point and not the same ground.
That is the reason the SCTA record and the FIA record might be different as was the case of the Danny boy entry and others.
As the meet grew in size they sought to eliminate the qualifying round and count any legal run over the Club record as 1 leg of the effort.
At first they would estimate the time requires to run all of them back and did it at the end of the same day.
It was during that late day session when when the fastest entries as having previously demonstrated there speeds in excess of a mark that was predetermined by board vote were given the chance for their down run.
At that point there were usually 2 or 3.
As time and tide evolved so did the SCTA revise their methods.
Often the reason was given to be safety but it really was a Club decision based on the available space they were able to prepare.
The 2 track method was first used in 89 at the Easyrider attempt and non record entries were allowed to run an El Mirage style 1 mile run up to a 132 ft trap.
That preserved the main track for the record vehicles and gave hundreds of people that could meet the safety requirements a chance to run on the salt and get a real time certificate.
You probably all remember "TUG BOAT", he was the 3rd fastest Shovel Head and will carry that memory and certificate with him to his grave.
Just tonight I confirmed my memory of those days with 2 of the people that recorded the times and areas on behalf of the SCTA / FIA.
Glen B. will remember them sitting on Cagle's armless side at the instructions of their father.
 Most of their laughs came when discussing their adventures with the young Mr. Foster and MR. Miller with the SCTa Pres. granddaughter.
Ask Al sometime about not pulling the chute until he got to the zero to scare Jackie with the boom.
Been done? YES
Safely ? YES.
Changes ?  Not always.
 

[dwarner]

"As the meet grew in size they sought to eliminate the qualifying round and count any legal run over the Club record as 1 leg of the effort."

Jack,

One other factor you didn't mention. The USFRA began the two run procedure and the SCTA years later were forced? to adopt. This was a portion of the agreement to combine the records from both groups so that the entrants knew which record speed they were running against in a given class. The record combining was a 5 year project, not simply done with the stroke of a pen.

A person now has only to look two places to find their class record.

DW

[JackD]

Dan is correct.
The USFRA did it on their own as an effort towards efficiency.
They were treated for years as the Utah Upstarts as was ECTA and DLRA.
Many people forget there iis a learning curve and they started way ahead of the place SCTA started.
It is possible to learn from others, the hard part is to admit it.
The first time I saw it was when I exceeded one of their Club records and Mary West explained to me that I only needed 1 more run to get the Club record.
In those days they didn't even have 2 way runs.
When I got back to the head of the line to get my time ticket on my 180mph street bike the next entry was not even ready.
Did I say I was speeding ?  NO, so forget it!
She looked up and said if I was ready, it was still my turn so I went again.
The Trophy was hand painted on a flex plate fom the junk yard that I will have forever.
Those days were a lot more fun.

[Sumner]

How you state it does make a difference......

.........After having qualified, the eligible entrants gathered at first light of the next running day to make their 2 way run for the real record. All vehicles ran the same 1 track and the short course entries were allowed a 2 mile approach to the same real estate from each end. That is to say they were timed from the 2 to the 3 after starting from the zero and from the 3 to the 2 after returning from the 5. The over 175mph entries had all 3 timed miles available but still starting with a 2 mile approach to the first of 3 miles. The average for them was still required to be over the same real estate ............

Thanks for the history and explanation Jack , and thanks for writing it in English  , that must of hurt  .

So if I understand the part of your post above, the change to using the same relative mile vs. the same physical mile did not effect the under 175 (or close to 175) mph records as they still had the same 2 mile run-up to the timed mile.  For the over 175 mph records the change probably did have a larger effect on records that had been set under the same physical mile requirements that SCTA used up to that time.  Those records had to be set under different length run-ups unless you averaged your middle mile going down and coming back.  That mile most likely wasn't as fast as your 5th relative mile going and coming back but since they weren't over the same real estate you couldn't average them. Do I have it now???

As I said in my last post changes will probably always have to be made and records will be effected by them, but none of us should expect or even hope that our records will be forever. We were lucky to get one last year and those memories will be with us forever , that is what counts .

c ya and Happy Holidays to everyone,

Sum

[JackD]

Well if you understood it as English, then My Merican is slipping.
How my gonna splain it to ECTA, and  not too mention DLRA ?
It was required that a vehicle qualify for the long course over 175 in the 1/4 before being allowed to take the long course.
I had a vehicle that was just barely going to make it but I was sure i could do it.
Try as I might all day, it was a couple of mph slow and I couldn't explain it.
Finally when I was doing the math to be sure on my gear selection, I figured the 1/4 must have been measured in error and 100ft too long.
And so it was. I went out to look at it from the return road and could see it because I have spent a lot of time looking at 1/4 mile distances.
That night they fixed it and the next day we made it OK but not before i asked for them to make it right with a correction to the results. The answer was NO.
I don't know how many others had the same problem but it sure caught us.
Ultimately the car set a record over 2 and got my driver in the club and later that same week I set an FIA record with it at Speedweek.
Stuff happens to the best of us and me too..

[Dean Los Angeles]

The two way run has always been to cancel the effects of a wind-aided run. This ignores the fact that the wind could change between runs. It would be nice if all runs everywhere could be compared on the same level playing field. Drag racing is a 1/4 mile and no one disputes that. Land speed racing has always been an all volunteer sport. No spectator money to fund a permanent race course. The changes in record procedure has more to do with the amount of salt and the time available to run the race then an attempt to subvert previous records.
It appears that the really fast vehicles go faster with every mile traveled. A 20 mile course would allow much faster records. This makes where the course starts and the amount of run to the timed portion critical. The shorter the run the more vehicles affected.
So how does this come to a solution? It never will. Jack certainly has a number of asterisks tied to some records that weren't done on a level playing field, kind of like Roger Maris home run record. I never knew this history, and I'm super happy that Jack and others keep us all honest.
My wish for the new year is that all LSR records in the future be done on a level playing field. BUB, ECTA, DLRA, SCTA running with the SAME rule book. I also suppose that peace in the middle east might be easier.

[Glen]

Like Jack, Dan and others have said is now history. The control on everything is always under tight control. The clocks are certified every year just before speed week, the surveying is certified. Everything is being watched for accuracy. I assure the years I have been inthe timing trailer the staff has a meeting before, during and after the meets. The computers used today are backed up on the hard drives, printed run sheets, and hand written run sheets. The process of going over the records after the meet and before they are official are looked at by no less then 4 people. There are no give aways. To stay on top of everything there are 6 people in the trailer, 3 at each end. The Chronologic computer people(the Rices) are always on hand. It's sun up to the last car runs each day usually 12 hours. This starts the tuesday before the meet and at least one day after the meet. The starters, inspectors, patrols. stageing and all other volunteers are right there as well to make it happen. SCTA/BNI gets better every meet. There will always be gliches but Speed Week 2006 was the best ever. Lots of plans are in the talking stages for 2007 to make it even better for everyone.
Have a great new year.
GB

[JackD]

THIS MESSAGE IS FOR GLEN AND GLEN AND GLEN AND DAN

Let's let Dean  live.
It would make my girls happy and they are a tough sell.
Right boys ?

[Glen]

Jack
 I remember when someone got under Cagle's skin he would hold their time and they had to pay him a visit in the tower.  Now it's automatic and we can't hold their times, doggone computers anyway. 

[dwarner]

"Those records had to be set under different length run-ups unless you averaged your middle mile going down and coming back.  That mile most likely wasn't as fast as your 5th relative mile going and coming back but since they weren't over the same real estate you couldn't average them. Do I have it now???"

Sum,

Not quite - if your fast speed was in the last (4-5) mile you backed up to the 9 mile. This gave you your four mile run to the "relative mile" (5-4). Running all passes in the same direction as is currently done leaves a much smaller area to conduct the event in.

DW

[JackD]

I never got to visit Gary like that.
For me it was always a "THANKS FOR THE TIME" type of deal although the fear of crossing him did influence some of my decisions..  LOL
He did an FIM 24 hr endurance event with me in Texas once and we were up for 41 hours straight timing laps for 2 bikes.
I'll bet nobody else saw him work that hard. 
Glen is one of the few around that knows that I always got 4 runs at El Mirage per event on the bike and sometimes even 5.
That was before the glory days of automation and I am confident my secret is safe with him. LOL
  

[PorkPie]

The two way run has always been to cancel the effects of a wind-aided run. This ignores the fact that the wind could change between runs.

Nope, originally the two way run (inside one hour) was create from the FIA (alright, to this time of the organisation name was other) after a English sportsman (1903) used a downhill running for a one way record attempt.....his name was Charles Rolls from Rolls & Royce fame......but it needs the organisation nearly 8 years to get this into the rule book (1911) and in 1914, the first record under the 2 way rule was set - Hornsted with the Blitzen Benz.