Rules, Organizational layout

[Dakin Engineering]

It's about credibility. If you establish "rules" and then ignore them, the "records" are no more than timing slips.
 
 If you want to compete with me, build your bike to the specifications of the SCTA rulebook FOR THAT CLASS, and I'll see you Bonneville.

[Dakin Engineering]

I pioneered 1650 MPS/PBG in '01 and MPS/PBF in '02 at Bonneville. Soft records, to be sure; I'm just getting started. I love having peers to measure my progress against. It motivates me to keep coming back.
 
 I also ran at Maxton in '02. Those records have been superceded as well, but who knows what size/configuration they were? At least I know that I met the specifications for the classes I set records in.
 
 By all means, bring it on! See you on the Salt!

[k.h.]

1.  As I understand it, someone "gaming the system" through class jumping at Bonneville could get multiple listings in the record book.  As I understand it, it used to be legal to do so, but no longer is.  Perhaps old records acquired thru class jumping should be differentiated.
 
 2.  Pushrod classes have relatively more coverage in the national M/C press.  Fans like competition.  LSR is a competition; 1650 MPS/PBG&F have been real competitive since Sam pioneered the class.  I recommend one of those XRTT fairings with a CdA of 2.71 for your Sportster, bearing in mind the Drag Force (Fd) moment on that shape much above 200mph may tend to lift the front wheel.  
 
 3.  The most important record is the next one.

[narider]

Originally posted by Sam Dakin:
  I also ran at Maxton in '02. Those records have been superceded as well, but who knows what size/configuration they were? At least I know that I met the specifications for the classes I set records in.

Sam, are you saying you don't believe that the the XLlist team(which you're a member of) or Tom Metty, or Don Thigpen, or Sidney Conn were legal to run in the 1650 class? Especially the last two as they were in your class specifically. Come on, you only ran in the mid 120mph range with a 1650cc blown partially streamlined bike didn't you? I'm not downing your speed, just being realistic here. I'm sure Scott has some old sportsters(maybe even a Kmodel) that will exceed that. I think the 1650 blown faired class should be in the 200+mph range shouldn't it?
 TD

[narider]

Originally posted by Jim Snyder:
  I would like to see cars/bikes run only in the class for which they are eligible. No more taking one bike and running 8 different classes with no configuration change.
  Like the SCTA/USFRA class rules.
  JimS
  lsr 504.506

APS/PBF-1650/4 Whiplash May-03 163.773
 APS/PBG-2000/4 Whiplash Jun-03 162.490
 
 ?
 TD

[narider]

You know as well as I do that's easier said then done Scott. I think the idea is great if it worked, but there are things that would pose safety, space and manpower factors. Such as a front brake not being needed for SCTA.. that doesn't fly real well for those that are coming to ECTA for the first time with plans on running well over 200mph and being able to do that in 5 runs before noon their first day there.
 Maybe adopting the SCTA rules outright would be fine if an extra page of "reccomendations" or "additional needed safety items" was added?
 But then agian, this also means that you will need to start towing your vehicles to starting and from shutdown. This will also include alot of additional space to allow for these trailers around tech, impound and the pits in general.. let alone the line being formed down the access road due to not being able to fit many of these tow vehicles and trailers in the staging lanes at one time.  
 It also means a tremendous amount of additional volunteers will be needed to help out in the items mentioned above as well as for EVERY vehicle that qualifies for a record. Then they will have to go back and run again to get that record also.
 Or is everyone saying they want to adopt just the part of the SCTA rules THEY care about?
 Big differences!
 TD

[JackD]

Sami said "Scott spelled challenge wrong. Is he spell jumping again?"
 If I understand the question correctly, top speed within the limits of the class is the answer.
 All the various configurations of Bonneville entries have had their press day in the sun over the years. If you notice that pink motorcycles are getting a lot of ink it's probably because you own one or want to. The best competition I have seen was when the 50cc Production class was so hotly contested with 4 or so entries swapping the record every day.
 You don't have to go 250mph to set a record at Bonneville, but you do have to be the fastest within the limits of the rules. If you choose not to take full advantage of the class and still go faster than your opponent, the only thing that sticks is you went faster.

[equimania]

At the risk of putting my head in the line of fire:
 
 I fail to see that the issue of whether or not competitors can run up in motor size is the ?religious? issue that some seem to think it is.  I also fail to see how allowing running up in class ?dilutes? the records in any way.  If someone builds a bike (substitute ?car? for ?bike? hereinafter if you wish) with a 999cc motor and wants to run in a class where bikes with motors up to 1200cc are eligible, I say bless him.  Even though he might instead, or as well, compete against bikes of smaller size, bless him.  And to the guy who is offended by that, I say go take full advantage of allowable engine size and build a 1200 and kick his butt.
 
 How does that dilute the class record?  Nonsense. Remember, the class breaks are themselves arbitrary.  There?s simply is no fundamental logic to allowing a 1000.1 cc motor run against 1200 cc motors, but not letting a 999.9 cc motor run in the same class, except one that is for the sole purpose of being exclusionary.  Now that may be ok, but admit what you are doing.  You?re excluding a competitor for the purpose of excluding a competitor, not to protect the sanctity of the record books.  Let?s all just admit that it reduces competition, not improves and sanctifies it somehow.
 
 Now, all that is not to say that the more restrictive rule is itself bad.  It seems to me that the SCTA way, which is effectively to limit the class to ?motors bigger than x and smaller than y? is fine for them.  But it is not fundamentally better or worse than the current ECTA version, which boils down to defining the class as ?motors not bigger than x.?
 
 Personally, I could go either way.  However, I think that right now in the life of the ECTA, allowing running up in class is the better answer for several reasons (which since I already wrote a book, I will spare you for now), but that?s just one man?s opinion.
 
 My main point here is this is not an issue of credibility or dilution of records or any of the other incendiary words that people in this thread have used.  So let's not hide behind those notions.
 
 (OFF MY SOAPBOX.)

[LittleLiner]

I guess I agree with Mark.
 
 I think that the issue of credibility of an ECTA record should hinge on two factors; . . . Engine size and a body that conforms to the class standard.  
 
 Although on the engine size issue I could see a compromise.  First establish a set of minimum class record standards. (maybe 90% of El Mirage records/minimums) Allow someone to run in any engine class if their engine is legal in that class OR a smaller class.  Example is someone that is building a car for K/FL.  Allow them to run in any Lakester engine class (AA through K) but require that they break the minimum to set a record.  If a 500cc engine can break a legitimate minimum for a 2000cc (G) class they should be allowed to have that well earned record.  One other requirement would be the restriction that you cannot attempt to set a record in a class for a larger engine UNLESS YOU HOLD THE RECORD FOR YOUR ENGINE CLASS.  So in the example of the K/FL the car must first set a record in K/FL before trying to 'move up'.
 
 In the fuel classes let fuel be ?optional? so gas cars could run in them.  
 
 For Blown classes let blowers by ?Optional?.
 
 But there is more to consider under this ?total? accepting of the SCTA rules at Maxton.  There are classes at Maxton that do not exist at Bonneville.  LX and KX Karts, L engine class (250cc) for cars, Super Street, Pure Street, Circle Track.
 
 Circle Track is a very good example.  The NASCAR Dodge top time car at the October meet at Maxton is not a legal car for Bonneville.  It would not be allowed in Competition coupe because the body panels are overly modified for that category (converted from 4 door to 2 door and the contour has been somewhat altered beyond what is allowed.)
 
 Other considerations are things like the tire rules.  The rules for maximum speeds allowed with certain speed rated tires varies between the Bonneville and Maxton rules.  C Clip rear hubs are allowed up to 150mph at Maxton but not at BNI.  Full roll cages are required in all cars at Bonneville but only 4 point bars are required above 125mph and full cages above 150 at Maxton.  I could go on but you get the point.
 
 In the mean time I am working on my J/GC and looking forward to running with the ECTA and maybe (with a little luck)Bonneville.
 
 Art

[DahMurf]

Mark,
  I totally agree with you.
 
 I think allowing class jumping only serves to set minimum standards for that class. I don't see the harm in that. Theoretically a larger engine should be able to run faster then a smaller engine in a similar configured body so you're not taking anything away from the vehicle that is in that class as it?s base class. I don?t understand the point in limiting how far up a vehicle can run. You absolutely have to limit the bottom of the spectrum to keep it fair but running up is still fair. Why do we want to restrict how many records a person can make in how many classes? That has nothing to do with credibility. CC-ing engines & having Tech & Impound thoroughly inspect & classify a vehicle will create credibility to records. Are we somehow trying to reserve classes for someone who may never come?
 
 I think in regards to ECTA class jumping is an issue/consideration for two reasons.
 1) The ability to class jump effects the outcome of the point?s race. (Convenient that we're trying to restrict jumping now that many of our points competitors are running out of open classes while some others are wide open. (i.e. small cc/pushrod bikes))
 2) Money. Class changing generates income. ECTA is still relatively new and growing and every penny still counts.
 
 Personally I?d rather see the points race go away then to change the class jumping.
 We?re Land Speed Racing, which means going fast. If you can go fast in multiple classes then go for it. Your record and personal accomplishment are your reward. Give the vehicle that made the most records in a given year and/or the fastest runs a plaque or trophy. Why do we have to reward people for learning how to play the points game which only serves to reward you for playing a game not for running the fastest.
 
 Just my opinion
 Deb #1301
 Twin Jugs Racing

[equimania]

Originally posted by DahMurf:
  Personally I?d rather see the points race go away then to change the class jumping.
 We?re Land Speed Racing, which means going fast. If you can go fast in multiple classes then go for it. Your record and personal accomplishment are your reward. Give the vehicle that made the most records in a given year and/or the fastest runs a plaque or trophy. Why do we have to reward people for learning how to play the points game which only serves to reward you for playing a game not for running the fastest.
 

Ahhh . . . the points system.  That?s another whole can of worms ? albeit related to the class division discussion.  I agree with Deb, and I swear we did not rehearse this.      
 
 I think the points system has a bunch of flaws.  That does not mean it is not an ok thing.  Everyone knows what the rules are, and anyone can choose to aim toward it or not.  But it is not an even playing field.  The very construct of the points system awards faster vehicles.  That?s ok, but slower guys who are as talented and dedicated and having as much or more fun need not apply.  Guys who build vehicles that put on spectacular performances for what they are, but who can only afford to compete at one or two meets only, need not apply.  Guys running in the most competitive classes where the records are already stratospheric need not apply.  Etc., etc.
 
 I just think we need collectively to figure out what we want to reward.  I really have no big issue with the current points race, but I view it as a sideshow, not THE game.  The game is doing the best you can with your vehicle and your budget in a class or classes you choose to run in.  I think the points race would be better if it were designed to reward truly excellent performance, not just going fast and exploiting the points structure and the class structure.  I have thought about this some and just am at a loss to come up with such a system that does not unduly favor the wrong things.
 
 As a possible alternative, I just raise the question whether the same ten trophies might not better serve the community of racers if they went to categories like ?Fastest Bike of the Season,? ?Fastest Car of the Season,?  ?Best Sportsman,? ?Most Innovative Design,? ?Best Prepared Vehicle,? etc.  If you don?t like these, make up your own categories.  Some are objective; some are going to be by definition subjective.  But I really don?t think subjectivity of any award is any more offensive than the arbitrary points system that is in my view rewarding the wrong things.
 
 Please understand, I am not opposed to a season point race.  I chose to play ?the sideshow? this season and ended up in fifth place, which is pretty good, I think, on a bike that was severely handicapped by only going a bit over 100 mph in a points system that awards points largely based on speed.  I just wonder if from the organization?s point of view (and that, in my view, means the racers as a whole) if the same resources (i.e., money for trophies) could be better allocated.
 
 Sorry I have more questions than answers.
 
 Mark
 
  <small>[ December 07, 2004, 05:52 PM: Message edited by: Mark ]</small>

[equimania]

Originally posted by LittleLiner:
 
 In the fuel classes let fuel be ?optional? so gas cars could run in them.  
 
 For Blown classes let blowers by ?Optional?.
 
 

I agree with most of what Art said.
 
 Two comments:
 
 I think fuel is "optional" in fuel classes.  You can run anything you want, from pump gas to moonshine, including track gas -- just don't get your tank sealed -- and it is fully "optional.".
 
 I am not sure why blowers should be optional.  I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth, but I think Art, Deb, and I and perhaps others were making a case for allowing running up in motor class, but adhering to the structural class differentiations. I see blowers as a fundamental design thing, just like pushrods vs. non pushrods, or areodynamics (S or PS) vs. no aerodymanics.  I ceretainly don't have a strong feeling about it, but I think requiring blowers in blown classes is more consistent with that notion.
 
 Mark

[equimania]

Originally posted by scott guthrie:
  Consider the below examples, for smiles. . . .

Smiles, hell.  All the metaphysics made my head hurt.
 
 Mark

[2fast4u2c]

First off, I get a little long winded, but I'm stuck in a hotel in Lincoln, NE and figured it was alright to chime in.
 
 When in Rome...or El Mirage or Bonneville
 
 If a vehicle fits within the limits of a class, should it not be allowed to run that class?  
 
 Because smaller doesn't always mean slower, should we keep the fast kid in his place?
 
 Why is it wrong to grow a sport and a sanctioning body thru financial strength so that it can continue to evolve without always struggling?
 
 When in Rome...or Bonneville, we do what is required for that event and it's classes.  The mecca of LSR has evolved over many, many years and is in it's majesty today, but it didn't get there overnight.
 
 The ECTA is also evolving and who knows what it may look like in 5 years.
 
 I know that I am very new to LSR (and loving it) so my knowledge of the grand history of Land Speed Racing is miniscule compared to all of you.  My knowledge of running a sanctioning body is not new.  I have had the honor of being the AMA/Prostar US Drag Racing series Race Director for a season and I know first hand what it takes to operate a sanctioned event and can tell you with all sincerity that the ECTA must evolve.  Whether it allows class jumping or not, it must first garner enough racers to support it's growth.  
 
 As I have been told so many times that Maxton is not Bonneville nor El Mirage and that my records at Maxton apply to Maxton's 1 mile event only.  
 Since it is volunteer driven to man all the necessary positions to operate an event(impound, start line, fuel checks and technical inspections) and volunteers are scarce, then the positions are what they are until such time as the organization can grow to a more fuller organization.  You can put all the rules you want to in place, but if they can't be enforced or cost you your revenue to grow, what good did they do at the time.
 
 Let's not put constraints on our dreams for a unified sanctioning bodies rules by trying to cookie cut rule books.
 
 Anyway, that was just my $.02
 Thanks for opportunity.
 
 Guy
 
  <small>[ December 07, 2004, 08:05 PM: Message edited by: 2fast4u2c ]</small>

[JackD]

Well, that's more common sense this afternoon than I have seen together over many years. Guy will remember IDBA that retired records every few years to re-sell the class to someone. They are gone now. A suggestion to keep the points from running away might include:
 1. The points be issued to a member rider in one class per meet and they must declare their class designation at registration before running. They may set additional records for recognition, however, no additional points would be awarded at that meet.
 2.  No points would be awarded in an open class without a minimum or in a class where the engine size below you is faster.
 3.  Use whatever points number you consider appropriate, however, if you use bonus points for setting a record they would be limited to a class where you took a record away from someone else. Individual recognition by entry category should be a trophy sponsored by the appropriate business. For example, Carl Morrow, should buy the pushrod trophy not just because I told him to. You will find that many businesses would be happy to put their name along side a category winner.