SCTA Record Integrity

[Sumner]

..........................
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

Thanks for that I didn't know that, so that makes me feel like the guys before the "run one direction" had the same chance.  Somehow I was thinking that when Al set the record the down mile was like about 430 and the same physical return mile was about 389 for the 409 average.  I was thinking his return run to the measured mile was not as long as the down run to the measured mile. Now I guess he just didn't run anywhere near as fast coming back from what you are saying.

What really confuses me know is that recently I've been made aware that he set a much higher FIA record than the 409 SCTA record.  Did that occur on this same set of runs?  and if so what were the details of that??

Interesting stuff,

Sum

[PorkPie]

Thanks for that I didn't know that, so that makes me feel like the guys before the "run one direction" had the same chance.  Somehow I was thinking that when Al set the record the down mile was like about 430 and the same physical return mile was about 389 for the 409 average.  I was thinking his return run to the measured mile was not as long as the down run to the measured mile. Now I guess he just didn't run anywhere near as fast coming back from what you are saying.

What really confuses me know is that recently I've been made aware that he set a much higher FIA record than the 409 SCTA record.  Did that occur on this same set of runs?  and if so what were the details of that??

Interesting stuff,

Sum

[/quote]

Sum, which record you mean - 1991 record with 409 or the 406 with the smaller engine from 2002?

In 2002 Al was fast on the first run, but on the return run half way through the mile he blew the engine. he done th gear in neutral and coast so to the end of the mile. That's the reason, why he set only a 406 record.

The 1991 record is a little bit strange. For Al stand in the kilo a 425 mph record and for the mile a 409 mph record.
I asked Al in 2002 about this - his answer was - I can't remember ever seen a kilo average time slip with this speed - this, so he mentioned - was a one way speed. Why it stand on his FIA certification and in the FIA list, he has no idea.

By the way, it was me who showed Al this 425 for the kilo - it stand there in km/h and I done him a mph calculation - he was very surprised.

To FIA, the 425 mph over the flying kilo is the fastest average speed ever set by a piston engine car.

This is very important for everybody who likes to go for the blown unlimited piston class on FIA - means Burkland.

[PorkPie]

To FIA, the 425 mph over the flying kilo is the fastest average speed ever set by a piston engine car.

This is very important for everybody who likes to go for the blown unlimited piston class on FIA - means Burkland.
[/quote]
I seperate this to my other comment.

Why is this so important.

Therefore I have to explain something special on the FIA rules.

Best example is Blue Flame/Gary Gabelich and Thrust II/Richard Noble.

When Richard set in 1983 a new mark, the Blue Flame and the Thrust was running still in the same class - FIA C Thrust power - meanwhile they split the Class C in Rocket power and Jet power.

The Blue Flame got the mile with a 622 mph in the record book and the kilo with a 630 mph - in America people are not taking care for the flying kilo - better they do.

Richard went 633 mph in the mile and 634 mph in the kilo.

Now everybody would say, great - the 634 is the new record, but this is wrong.

Richard's speed over the kilo was not 1% faster than Gary Gabelich's kilo speed of 630 mph.

Now, Richard's mile record was with the 633 mph 1% faster than the mile record from the Blue Flame and also faster than the kilo speed.

So at last, the kilo record from Gary was still in the FIA record book and only the mile record went to Richard Noble.

Gary's kilo record is in, still today, due to this that meanwhile rocket and jet are different catagories.

What the FIA rules now means to Al's 1991 record is this.

To set a new record in blown, piston engine in the unlimited litre class 11, he has to be 1% faster in the kilo, or a friction faster than the kilo speed in the mile. In other words, as a example - if now Tom Burkland would run 424 mph in the mile and 426 mph in the kilo, he would not set a new record......

Why? The 424 is not faster than the 425 in the kilo (which Al set in 1991), and the 426 mph is not 1% faster than the 425 in the kilo - confused now - I can understand.

The whole thing is very strange, but FIA rule.

So Tom Burkland has to go 425+ mph in the mile or 429.5+ mph in the kilo to set a new record.
If he goes 426 mph in the mile and in the kilo only 427 mph - he would only get the mile record, not the kilo - the kilo would stay by Al.

So also, to FIA, the 417 mph which was set by Tom Burkland in October 2004 during the World Final, is not the fastest average to today, except you count only the flying mile........but as I wrote before....in America, they better take also care for the flying kilo...............

[JackD]

Pork is correct and their is even a rule that establishes the maximum grade change during the run up and the timed distance.
If Drag Races are on a level playing field, I am really confused about the published standard that does allow a maximum % grade change.
Then their is the pesky thing that has all the Drag tracks running at different elevations and and conditions. You know they still require a backup run.
Many think Bonneville is flat, but with the curve of the Earth you are running up hill both ways.  LOL
Lets not mention El Mirage Horse Power in front of the people that don't deserve it.
Go figure.
Should we tell them ?
How about the runs from Floating Mountain back towards  the Highway are generally faster for the liners.

[bak189]

As far as making the LSR rules all the same
for the WHOLE WORLD.............I tried that with the sidecar LSR rules.............and we all know how far I got with that........ZERO!!!!!!!!

[Sumner]

.........
.......Sum, which record you mean - 1991 record with 409 or the 406 with the smaller engine from 2002?........
................
The 1991 record is a little bit strange. For Al stand in the kilo a 425 mph record and for the mile a 409 mph record.

I asked Al in 2002 about this - his answer was - I can't remember ever seen a kilo average time slip with this speed - this, so he mentioned - was a one way speed. Why it stand on his FIA certification and in the FIA list, he has no idea......................

I was refering to '91.

It seems strange to me also how this happened.  The math just doesn't seem to add up.  The only explanation I see to it is that the kilo is shorter than the mile, so you can run faster in the kilo and still have a slower mile time on the same run.  There just seems to be too much difference here though for that to have happened.

No matter, as hearing and seeing Al run is the one thing that really seems missing now.  There just always seems to be a hole in Speed Week without him running and as someone else mentioned Carl.

I'm glad I have those memories,

Sum

[PorkPie]

No matter, as hearing and seeing Al run is the one thing that really seems missing now.  There just always seems to be a hole in Speed Week without him running and as someone else mentioned Carl.

I'm glad I have those memories,

Sum

[/quote]

Sum,

as I wrote - something is with the 91 record certification not really right - also Al has no idea what's wrong with them.
In 2002 I was interest to clearify this with the SCTA people, but after Nolan's incident they has something other to do than to check this.

Hope Al will be back in 2007 - Jane wrote me the other day, that Al's health is fine now and they are looking for to be back in 2007 - would be great to see Jane and Al back at the salt.

And yes, I miss Carl - especially that I was his team photographer for the last years. But his old team keeps his spirit in the pits - if you have time stop the next time in the pits on there place - you will like it.

[jimmy six]

This is additional answer to one of "Glens eyes on the times". Over the last few years we had had records set and attempted under 175 on the long course. I'm sure the vehicles had 175 stickers from previous engines or classes; but the record started under 175.

As I do Certs and Timing Tags it's one of the things I look at and even after the meet is over those records have been disallowed. As Glen says there are lots of eyes looking at all of the #'s. I wouldn't like it if I were trying to qualify on the record set in 5 miles which should have been in 3. Many of the problems happen on the last day when the short course is shut down.

I'm sure the expert here will tell of those missed; but that was in the past and I hope they won't happen again for sake of a level playing field....Good luck this summer and remember you are already 4 months behind....J.D.

[JackD]

Before the days of automation the class and standing record were noted before the run and that would trigger the proper recording of the speed.
Al of that was on the same track.
175 stickers also have a date code the starter might be alerted to. ?

[Richard Thomason]

We have set records using all the aforementioned criteria. Qualify one day, come back the next and make two passes, 6 mile two way runs, 5 mile two way runs, 5 mile same direction runs, 5 mile relative mile runs, none of it was easy, but all of them were fun, challenging and exciting. Are they all the same? To a certain degree yes, and in some ways no. We don't race in a controlled environment that is always the same. The salt and distance changes annually, from meet to meet and sometimes daily or even hourly. Are they all valid? I certainly believe so.  Land Speed racing is not 1/4 mile drags, that are specified and/or certified to a certain distance. Historically LSR is about what is available. That's why there have been records set at many places in the world including Daytona Beach. LSR has always been about using whatever venue was suitable and available. The more distance the better. If it's available, use it if you can. That's also one reason that SCTA ran a short course and a long course. For some cars, three miles is rather adequate. No one wanted to wait for a vehicle to run an extra two miles at essentially the same speed. If your back door speed is the same as your mile time, you don't need more room. If you are still picking up 20 mph or so in the last mile, you can use more room and are being penalized if it's available but are not allowed to use it. What is magical about 5 miles? That is a fairly recent decision. 5 miles is enough for most cars but not all. There used to be provisions for longer run-ups if the salt was available. Some years it is/was some years not. We are all dependent upon the salt.

[Richard Thomason]

As to Al's records, if I remember correctly, the middle mile was used as the certification mile because that way there was the same distance run up from each end. He stayed under power through the last mile to see what the car would actually run if it had more distance. The return run using that same mile for FIA certification was actually  then 2 miles shorter so the average was not near what the average of the 2 middle mile runs were. Also, I believe that the kilo was not in the center of the measured mile but rather at one end.

[JackD]

The "LEVEL PLAYING FIELD" for the LSR vehicles that can use more space has no fence.
While I very rarely commented on the procedure used in magazine tests, once at El Mirage I won a lunch bet when I told them to not get so far back with the stock bikes and with a shorter runup they could go faster.
At maximum speed, they built excess heat and lost power.
The length of th ride at speed made them feel they were going faster but they were not.
I heard enough of them that it was easy to tell when they layed down.

[JackD]

Purty good memory for a kid.
The kilo was it's measured distance and ended at the 4 marker.
That was the middle mile of the timed area and used for FIA/FIM mile recording also.
Al's return speed was so much greater because both the runup distance was greater and the farther you get from the mmining operation the better the salt.

[Sumner]

We have set records using all the aforementioned criteria. Qualify one day, come back the next and make two passes, 6 mile two way runs, 5 mile two way runs, 5 mile same direction runs, 5 mile relative mile runs, none of it was easy, but all of them were fun, challenging and exciting.........

........ We are all dependent upon the salt.

Great overview Richard!!, thanks ,

Sum

[PorkPie]

As to Al's records, if I remember correctly, the middle mile was used as the certification mile because that way there was the same distance run up from each end. He stayed under power through the last mile to see what the car would actually run if it had more distance. The return run using that same mile for FIA certification was actually  then 2 miles shorter so the average was not near what the average of the 2 middle mile runs were. Also, I believe that the kilo was not in the center of the measured mile but rather at one end.

If you run FIA, the center of the measured distance is for both, the kilo and the mile the same - in other words, at first you drive in the flying mile, than after around 300 yards you cross the starting line of the kilo, when you leave the kilo you got another 300 yards to leave the mile. This is FIA RULE, no other measurement for the kilo and mile is allowed.
Normally, to FIA rule, is the flying kilo/mile in the center of the course, so that, as a example, the course is 11 miles long, you get 5 to accelerate, measured mile/kilo, and than 5 to stop the racer.