(Note: LANDRACING.COM donations are not tax deductible)


This is a public forum. The opinions expressed here don't
necessarily reflect the feelings of The Folks That Run The Site (that's us)
unless we explicitly say so, ok?


Author Topic: Wheelbase, spacing and handling  (Read 17598 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Rex Schimmer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2433
  • Age: 77
  • Location: Fulton, CA
  • Only time and money prevent completion!
Re: Wheelbase, spacing and handling
« Reply #30 on: December 02, 2007, 01:05:19 PM »
Panic,
The "coke bottle" shape of early supersonic aircraft is strictly related to only supersonic aircraft and does not have affect on land vehicles that certainly very "subsonic" like Corrvetts etc. The idea was to try to make the cross section area of the aircraft constant through out its length so the fuselage was narrowed in the area of the wings which gave the "coke bottle" shape to the aircraft.

The shape of an new Corvette is strictly to cover up the wide wheel/tire combination that they want to run.

On production based cars you want the air to go around the sides of the car and you want the wheel/tire outer edge to be inline with the body to prevent the air flowing past them from becoming un attached. Once the air becomes un-attached bluff body drag happens you go slow.

Rex
Rex

Not much matters and the rest doesn't matter at all.

Offline SPARKY

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6757
  • Age: 78
  • Location: Phoenix
Re: Wheelbase, spacing and handling
« Reply #31 on: December 10, 2007, 10:52:35 AM »
JH,  thanks for starting the thread on the Hot Nuts Effect!!!!!!!!!!  It apatently has affected more cars that just yours -- thats for sure!!
Miss LIBERTY,  changing T.K.I.  to noise, dust and RUST!!!

The # 1 issue is: TO KEEP THE REPUBLIC      
           tncsg.org     mrspowell.org

ELECTION  INTEGRITY  PROJECT
eip-ca.com  EIPAz.org  eipnv.

"Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature, nor do the children of men as a whole experience it. Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. Life is either a daring adventure or nothing."   Helen Keller

Offline tortoise

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 623
  • Age: 78
  • Location: Sequim, WA
Re: Wheelbase, spacing and handling
« Reply #32 on: December 10, 2007, 04:51:00 PM »
So, JH, will you be building to the new 27" minimum tread rule?

Offline Jonny Hotnuts

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1522
Re: Wheelbase, spacing and handling
« Reply #33 on: December 10, 2007, 06:43:56 PM »
Quote
So, JH, will you be building to the new 27" minimum tread rule?

"Front tread width may be narrowed a maximum of 12 in. less than OEM, but may not be less than 36 in. minimum. The entrant is required to provide the OEM front tread dimension."

27" is 9 more that could be legal.


After the tread width rule was implemented I was about 2 seconds away from building my front end using a forward canard to A.C. style wheel pants design. (Very similar to the Plymouth prowler but with covered wheels). If nothing more than to prove a blunt little rule change, aiming to make the class head into a generic direction, would not deter me from building a car could abided by the rules but very much not what the SCTA had in mind for the class and with the intent of the trac rule.

Let’s say I was talked out if it…..for no other reason to abide to the intent and not the possibility of what could be done, even if it was legal and in accordance with the rules.

Unfortunately, I have continued reservations about the rule change. I would like to see the MS class be more competitive to true sports cars but because in part of this rule change I could not see wider tracked sports cars like the Vett (minimum allowable is 51” [15” from 36]) and the Viper (minimum allowable 47” [11” from 36]) be made for MS. Even cars like the slim 911 will be giving up over 6” at 10’ to cars like the Berk, Fiat or the MG. This will IMO make only the cars with the most narrow stock track width desirable.
I would like to have seen a tread width number that ALL cars could run as apposed to “12” from OEM and no more than 36””. This would eliminate having to “provide documentation of OEM dimensions” and would also make the class competitive for cars other than tiny European 2 seaters….thankfully I have chose a Fiat long before this rule was proposed……don’t really have too much to complain about, certainly glad I didn’t opt for a Vett.


No more rants, but surprises to come…..

-JH

« Last Edit: December 10, 2007, 06:49:39 PM by Jonny Hotnuts »
jonny_hotnuts@hotmail.com

"Sometimes it is impossible to deal with her, but most of the time she is very sweet, and if you caress her properly she will sing beautifully."
*Andres Segovia
(when Im not working on the car, I am ususally playing classical guitar)

dwarner

  • Guest
Re: Wheelbase, spacing and handling
« Reply #34 on: December 11, 2007, 07:29:01 AM »
I don't know what you are talking about. The revised rule takes all cars including Corvettes to 27". How narrow do you need to go?

DW

Offline Stainless1

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 7678
  • Age: 69
  • Location: Near Furley and Kechi KS
  • Robert W. P. "Stainless" Steele
Re: Wheelbase, spacing and handling
« Reply #35 on: December 11, 2007, 08:31:37 AM »
Dan, welcome back, been on vacation?  I was afraid you retired from the website....

JNuts, the previously proposed changes may have been changed, every now and then, drift back to the homepage, the current change was released and posted.  As Dan said, looks like 27 is for everybody, no OEM or 12 inch language.
Stainless
Red Hat 228.039, 2001, 65ci, MSA Bockscar Lakester with a little N20 
MSA Bockscar Lakester #1000 my fastest mile 245 and change, 84 ci turbobusa motor... but Corey's 233 MPH H/BFL record is still 3MPH faster than mine.

Offline tortoise

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 623
  • Age: 78
  • Location: Sequim, WA
Re: Wheelbase, spacing and handling
« Reply #36 on: December 11, 2007, 09:57:15 AM »
Even cars like the slim 911 will be giving up over 6” at 10’ to cars like the Berk, Fiat or the MG. This will IMO make only the cars with the most narrow stock track width desirable.
Unless the rules allow the body to be narrowed, wide cars will always be at a competitive disadvantage in MS.

dwarner

  • Guest
Re: Wheelbase, spacing and handling
« Reply #37 on: December 11, 2007, 10:05:15 AM »
"Streamlining ahead of and including the cowl, channeling, belly pan and skirts is allowed. Front tread width may be narrowed to a minimum of 27 in."

I don't see any body width restrictions in these two sentences from the rulebook.

DW

Offline tortoise

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 623
  • Age: 78
  • Location: Sequim, WA
Re: Wheelbase, spacing and handling
« Reply #38 on: December 11, 2007, 10:41:24 AM »
I don't see any body width restrictions in these two sentences from the rulebook.
I'm talking about the body aft of the cowl. The entire modified category prohibits narrowed bodies.

Offline Jonny Hotnuts

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1522
Re: Wheelbase, spacing and handling
« Reply #39 on: December 11, 2007, 11:10:52 AM »
I just received a mail regarding this….

Must admit that I am MUCH happier about it for the reasons I mentioned before.

True that a narrower body will have an advantage, having a narrower front end (to a point) will too.

Good news for all in MS.
jonny_hotnuts@hotmail.com

"Sometimes it is impossible to deal with her, but most of the time she is very sweet, and if you caress her properly she will sing beautifully."
*Andres Segovia
(when Im not working on the car, I am ususally playing classical guitar)

dwarner

  • Guest
Re: Wheelbase, spacing and handling
« Reply #40 on: December 11, 2007, 11:58:00 AM »
Tortoise,

Now we're talking. Yes, the body must be stock from the cowl back. If it was my world it would be near OEM in front also but, I'm just a passenger.

DW

Offline tortoise

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 623
  • Age: 78
  • Location: Sequim, WA
Re: Wheelbase, spacing and handling
« Reply #41 on: December 11, 2007, 12:11:59 PM »
If it was my world it would be near OEM in front also  . . .
Ageed. One of the Bonneville Berkeleys has a stretched OEM nose, and it's actually pretty slick. Air dams should be allowed for safety, certainly.  Too late now, I guess.

dwarner

  • Guest
Re: Wheelbase, spacing and handling
« Reply #42 on: December 11, 2007, 01:21:52 PM »
Yep, too late again.

Jack and others will remember that at one time this class disappeared because of modifications that made the cars "one off" rather than based on a production body. Lufkin, White, Deeds and others made the class into gas streamliners.

Miler Mike Stewart and a couple of others resurrected the class to be a gas coupe type of thing. The cars then evolved, some would say devolved, into what we have today and the ones you didn't see that were proposed and rejected.

Oh well, that was then - this is now.

Less than a month and I don't have to worry,
DW

Offline jackson

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 70
  • Location: Springfield, MO
Re: Wheelbase, spacing and handling
« Reply #43 on: December 11, 2007, 02:06:42 PM »
Dan,
Have they found your replacement yet?  I am in the process of building a new a wind screen for the Berkeley and I would like to get someone's sign off before I go through all the work.

-Jack
« Last Edit: December 11, 2007, 02:08:13 PM by jackson »

dwarner

  • Guest
Re: Wheelbase, spacing and handling
« Reply #44 on: December 12, 2007, 07:29:09 AM »
Jack,

Use your committee contact, Jim Miller, section 17 of the rulebook. There will be no rules co-ordinator. Stuff will go through your committees.

DW