Poll

What is your opinion of developing new classes for NASCAR type cars?

Yes setup new classes for NASCAR type cars.
15 (25%)
No Need for New Classes they can run Time Only..
45 (75%)

Total Members Voted: 47

Author Topic: NASCAR cars and the SCTA.......  (Read 29277 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Stainless1

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8964
  • Robert W. P. "Stainless" Steele
Re: NASCAR cars and the SCTA.......
« Reply #15 on: October 21, 2007, 09:32:15 AM »

The NASCAR chassis are a well engineered chassis that is available at reasonable prices where folks can get a 200 mph capable car that they know is safe at a sensible price.


you mean to engineered to go fast and be safe turning left on a high bank oval....


The current rules already make it too expensive to run many of the current production cars in any of the modified classes, because of the drive train changes required you basically need to redesign the car.
What is SCTA going to do when none of the current production cars can run in Modified classes without prohibitive modifications in their design?

Larry

Larry, I think that is the definition of modified... if you can run it like it is, then it is production...
I guess if none of current production cars can run in Modified classes without prohibitive modifications in their design everyone will run classics...

Not defending or offending the possible new class, but just thinking in print....
« Last Edit: October 21, 2007, 09:38:34 AM by Stainless1 »
Stainless
Red Hat 228.039, 2001, 65ci, Bockscar Lakester #1000 with a little N2O

Offline RichFox

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2663
Re: NASCAR cars and the SCTA.......
« Reply #16 on: October 21, 2007, 09:50:48 AM »
Larry; My Vega has extensive drivetrain modifications. Nearly every roadster out there has extensive drivetrain modifications. Lakesters and 'liners have made up drivetrains. What's the deal with trying to avoid drivetrain modifications?

LVMAXX

  • Guest
Re: NASCAR cars and the SCTA.......
« Reply #17 on: October 21, 2007, 10:13:52 AM »
 :-D

« Last Edit: October 03, 2009, 12:03:54 PM by LVMAXX »

Offline Sumner

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4078
  • Blanding, Ut..a small dot in the middle of nowhere
    • http://purplesagetradingpost.com/sumner/sumnerindex.html
Re: NASCAR cars and the SCTA.......
« Reply #18 on: October 21, 2007, 10:49:40 AM »
.........................So, Let's See (?????)

Streamliners that cost "Mega-Bucks" were built by back yard amateurs (?????), so that qualifies them to be called "The Backbone Of Our Sport"?????.......

................. As configured might also be the way to go, that way you can watch us spin on the wide tires. Actually, tire technology has transformed many "Also Ran" race cars into high speed race cars, so using the LSR Tires would provide us with the stability we need, and that way we hopefully don't spin in front of the crowd.

Just our thoughts, so have at it.

R/J/MAXX2
MAXX2 RACING ('69 El Camino)

Yes there might be a couple "mega bucks" streamliners out there, but I'll bet the majority of them have less money in them than your car.  One reason I picked building a lakester is it is one of the cheapest ways to go fast.  A streamliner could have an even cheaper speed to dollar ratio, but I'm scared to drive one.

If you take a NASCAR car that actually ran NASCAR and then adapt it to land speed racing by changing the type of tires it ran, maybe the angle of the spoiler, adding 1000 lbs. of ballast and anything else that will make it run better on the salt then can you really say that you have the fastest NASCAR car that ever ran??  I applaud the guys that went out this year and actually ran what appeared to be a true NASCAR car in what appeared to be NASCAR trim.

Or is the point in running these cars providing a supposed  cheaper means of letting people run over 200 mph and not really a competitive purpose??  If so why is there a need for a class??  Run time only and still have the thrill of running over 200.

Dan I see you are suggesting '97 to '07.  Have the people that have petitioned for a class given you any guidelines themselves on what they would like to see??  Are they in agreement amongst themselves??  What happens in 2017 when finding a '97 to '07 is not so easy??

c ya and thanks for all the opinions,

Sum

Offline JackD

  • NOBODY'S FOOL
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4684
Re: NASCAR cars and the SCTA.......
« Reply #19 on: October 21, 2007, 12:03:21 PM »
Put the same power in many very available cars with all the required modifications and you can go faster cheaper and just as safe as adapting a NASCAR.
It is too easy to get too excited over too few examples of entries that don't measure up.
NASCAR design cars crash different and thus have protection from different things.
A lot of the design is to protect the driver from intrusion by another car, and of cource hitting the wall.
They have a number of very well studied and valuable driver safety features that should be considered and the cars should be entitled to run within the classes we already have if they fit.
"I would rather lose going fast enough to win than win going slow enough to lose."
"That horrible smell is dirty feet being held to the fire"

Offline RichFox

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2663
Re: NASCAR cars and the SCTA.......
« Reply #20 on: October 21, 2007, 12:13:36 PM »
I can understand someone who has an old Bush or cup car wanting to find a place to run it. Some have. Silver State Open Road Race. They do great there. If someone else wants to go Bonneville racing without the bother of building a Bonneville car then I would say "Subscribe to the Bonneville Racing News." Lots of used Bonneville cars for sale there and really interesting Do It Yourself storys.

Offline Stan Back

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5885
Re: NASCAR cars and the SCTA.......
« Reply #21 on: October 21, 2007, 12:22:05 PM »
LVMAXX --

You gotta be kiddin'!  If you crop the picture just right, the side view of the Titanic looks like a Modified Roadster, too.  Imagine the railings as roll bars.  Don't let the fact that there are no exposed wheels throw you.

What's Jack say about dating within you species?

Stan
Past (Only) Member of the San Berdoo Roadsters -- "California's Most-Exclusive Roadster Club" -- 19 Years of Bonneville and/or El Mirage Street Roadster Records

Offline RichFox

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2663
Re: NASCAR cars and the SCTA.......
« Reply #22 on: October 21, 2007, 01:06:57 PM »
One other thing I was thinking about is are we talking Cup cars here? Cup and Bush? What about Winston West? South eastern tour? Southwestern Tour? Craftsman Trucks? ASA? Maybe some ALMS cars since we are opening up to other groups. The NASCAR sactioned cars at Altamont don't look much like the ones I see on TV. And Watsonville is even farther off. If the point is to have the fastest NASCAR for the Guniss book, that is already being done. No change is necessary

Offline hotrod

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1231
    • Black Horse photo
Re: NASCAR cars and the SCTA.......
« Reply #23 on: October 21, 2007, 01:32:45 PM »
Quote
Larry, I think that is the definition of modified... if you can run it like it is, then it is production...
I guess if none of current production cars can run in Modified classes without prohibitive modifications in their design everyone will run classics...

Modified classes are mostly defined by what are really some very simple low cost aerodynamic modifications. Front grills covered, taped seams, simple belly pans etc.

You can take many of the domestic cars and for $20 add the modifications to push them out of production and run them in a modified class and run against several records instead of only one.

There are a large number of current production cars that cannot do that, because of the rules package in the modified classes that prohibit all wheel drive. For some of these the only thing they need to run considerabley faster is $10 worth of duct tape and front air dam that can be screwed on in 15 minutes, but because of their drive train design they cannot even challange the modified records that are well within reach otherwise.

AWD is becoming much more common in current production cars and in time will become the norm for performance cars due to its safety advantages. The car I own is a Subaru WRX but the same applies to the Dodge Talons  (the whole DSM family) the Mitsubishi Evo, 3000 GT, the Audi Quattro, Chrysler 300 C awd, Dodge Magnum SXT etc. In total there are just short of 400 current and recent production vehicles that come with all wheel drive from the factory, some 300 are not suitable for land speed racing, and about 100 of them are high performance cars intended for the car enthusiast which should have a reasonable progression from the production classes into an appropriate modified class.

Those cars cannot legally run in any of the modified classes with simple aero mods,  because of their drive train design. Many of them are capable speed and power wise to challenge and run against existing modified class records with some minor aero tweaks.

I know "let them run time only" --- just freeze them out of holding a legitimate record or ever having a chance at a 2 club hat with their OEM drive train. The whole point of hotrodding and the formation of land speed racing was so the average joe could take what ever he had available, and see what he could wring out of it. Now it seems that spirit only exists if you happen to want to work with a select few body styles and makes and if you happen to be a fan of another make or model --- well we will just legislate you out of the competition, so we will never know if you can beat existing records and all our old records are safe from challenge.

Some will say it is because all wheel drive is an unfair advantage. Well lets see if that is the case instead of out lawing it like was done with the all wheel drive roadsters, put an engine factor on cars running AWD, or keep separate records.

In time most every really high performance car will have AWD simply because the buying public perceives it as a safety advantage. Personally I agree and would much rather see it legalized and eliminate a number of spins on the course and the resulting competition delays as well. Not to mention the risk of driver injury.

I am afraid land speed racing is getting set in its ways ( and doing a serious disservice to the original intent of racing on the lakes and the salt ) and some are so determined to keep it the way it has always been, that they are not seeing the light at the end of the tunnel as new technology approaches. I love the old traditional cars but I am not a slave to tradition and want to see new things attempted in new ways --- that is what racing has always been about.

One of the other unwritten axioms of racing is that it "improves the breed" through racing. By outlawing the AWD systems you are also blocking the developement of ways to reduce its parasitic drag and how to keep it alive under extreme conditions. You can't improve a design that is not allowed to run.

When I grew up in the 60's I wanted to build a car for Bonneville and the best design I could come up with and afford was a 54 studebaker with a Chrysler Hemi. That was the best solution I could get my hands on and afford at the time. ( was forced to sell it before I could ever run it but the dream lives on )

Today the most capable cars for what I want to do, are AWD turbocharged imports, but they cannot compete for any of the records I want to challange, simply because of a rules package that prohibits a fundamental  characteristic of their design. They cannot run in any of the modified classes without ruining the car by down grading it to a less effective drive train.

Larry


« Last Edit: October 21, 2007, 01:39:03 PM by hotrod »

Offline Dynoroom

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2192
Re: NASCAR cars and the SCTA.......
« Reply #24 on: October 21, 2007, 01:47:16 PM »
I feel our type of racing (LSR) allows people to build cars the way they think it should be built to go fast. Lots of options on speed & type of cars via the rule book. The SCTA has added classes to make sure the sport continues to grow as most of us know but...

WE DO NOT NEED ANY MORE CLASSES!
Michael LeFevers
Kugel and LeFevers Pontiac Firebird

Without Data You're Just Another Guy With An Opinion!

Racing is just a series of "Problem Solving" events that allow you to spend money & make noise...

Offline RichFox

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2663
Re: NASCAR cars and the SCTA.......
« Reply #25 on: October 21, 2007, 02:41:04 PM »
You learn something every day. I never knew NASCAR ran AWD cars. If you removed the driveshaft to the rear axle you would no longer have an AWD car would you. Don't two wheel drive of many of these cars exist? Should we remove the requirment that the car be modified to run in the modified class? Attached a photo of an Altered car. Cheap to buy a Vega.
« Last Edit: October 21, 2007, 02:44:08 PM by RichFox »

Offline hotrod

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1231
    • Black Horse photo
Re: NASCAR cars and the SCTA.......
« Reply #26 on: October 21, 2007, 05:41:27 PM »
Quote
I never knew NASCAR ran AWD cars.

:D
Quote
If you removed the driveshaft to the rear axle you would no longer have an AWD car would you.

You would have a crippled broken car! Yes you can weld up the center diff and convert it to FWD (front wheel drive), and some of them do have front wheel drive variants,  but that is exactly the point --- you have crippled the car, you are now racing another design that has only a limited relationship with the original.

What would your response be to a rules package that said you must run your Corvette as manufactured in Production class but to run any of the modified classes you need to tear out the entire independent rear suspension and graft in a leaf spring 9" ford. It is one thing to make such a conversion in search of more performance (sometimes you gain sometimes you lose). It is another to have the change legislated for no good reason.

There is no reasonable reason for the prohibition of AWD in any of the modified classes except to protect existing records held by 2 wheel drive designs. It like the NASCAR issue is in my view, just an excuse to avoid having more competition and is in direct violation of the spirit of innovation and creativity many like to attribute to land speed racing. We hear all this talk about this is the last great amateur racing venue where you can be limited only by your creativity etc. etc.. That discription only applies if you are working with the prevailing style of construction.

The AWD roadsters set records and instead, encouraging innovation and congratulating the creativity developing a fair and reasonable way of letting them run, by creating a sub class for AWD or attaching some sort of a power/displacement factor to the engine size or some other means to even the playing field they were simply outlawed. The interesting thing is that they were outlawed just as it was obvious that world wide auto manufactures were moving toward AWD in performance models.

What you are doing is turning your back on an entire generation of performance enthusiasts!
The top speed interest in the import community is high right now but the only place they can do it is locations like The Texas Mile, and other abandoned airport type locations. Prohibiting AWD drive trains makes as much sense as prohibiting turbocharged engines. It is an important part of current technology and this NASCAR rule discussion is just another example of the hidden bias against change and flexibility that is supposed to be the trademark character of the land speed racing sport.

Two totally different discussions that go back to the same root --- a blind refusal to explore new options and let the sport grow with the changes that surround it in the greater auto and racing community. It is also a symptom of a larger trend in all the racing rule making bodies to lock out the most simple and obvious modifications or changes in technology, so that racers only have two options, run totally stock or spend a boat load of money but nothing in between.

Larry



Offline JackD

  • NOBODY'S FOOL
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4684
Re: NASCAR cars and the SCTA.......
« Reply #27 on: October 21, 2007, 07:09:50 PM »
With the size of the events and the increasing demands on the deteriorating surface, how many more entries or classes is just right ?
In many ways, SCTA is "Tradition unhampered by progress", but what is the price of what is percieved to be progress ?
Are the real entries getting really faster ? YES
Are the other sanction types making room for the orphaned LSR entries ? NO
If you have to have them and others that are "Time Only" for various reasons, why don't you invent something and lump them into a new class called "Retired Sports Racing"?
You can let the rules stop at safety to match the assembly and you otta be able to fill the stands with that.  :roll:

"Don't date out of your species."
"I would rather lose going fast enough to win than win going slow enough to lose."
"That horrible smell is dirty feet being held to the fire"

Offline desotoman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2816
Re: NASCAR cars and the SCTA.......
« Reply #28 on: October 21, 2007, 09:12:51 PM »

this NASCAR rule discussion is just another example of the hidden bias against change and flexibility that is supposed to be the trademark character of the land speed racing sport.

Larry


Who ever gave us that trademark?

My answer is still NO.

Run for Time Only.   

Tom G.
I love the USA. How much longer will we be a free nation?

Asking questions is one's only way of getting answers.

The rational person lets verified facts form or modify his opinion.  The ideologue ignores verified facts which don't fit his preconceived opinions.

Black Star

  • Guest
Re: NASCAR cars and the SCTA.......
« Reply #29 on: October 21, 2007, 09:17:09 PM »
Hayabusas are road race motorcycles. You know, turn left and right and there are LOTS of places to race them.

Are you guys saying we should not let them run? Cuz thats what I'm hearing...