Landracing Forum
Bonneville Salt Flats Discussion => Bonneville General Chat => Topic started by: Bobby Green on October 29, 2012, 08:40:13 PM
-
Every 2 years the SCTA rules committee is open to submissions for rule change/modifications as well as proposals for NEW classes. I have submitted for a new "Historic" vintage four cylinder class.
I would like to get your feedback on a new V4F class I am proposing to the SCTA rules committee this Saturday. Please read below and let me know what you think.
Hello racers,
If you are reading this it is because you have been participating in or are interested in participating in Land Speed Racing and the SCTA, particularly in the vintage four cylinder class. Some of you may know me, but for those that don't, my name is Bobby Green and for the last 8 years, I have been running my Bellytank "The Old Crow" in the V4 class. In that time I have broken six V4 records in both blown, un-blown, flathead and overhead classes. I have a real passion for the V4 and it's racing history.
When I started I was in my early 30's and was considered one of the younger guys getting involved in this sport. I chose the V4 class because it was historic but also because it was an entry level class with many open or achievable records. In the time I've been racing, I have inspired many other new racers to get involved and the V4 class has grown exponentially. However, every year I see more and more vintage engine records becoming unreachable due to high dollar modern technology that is limiting many vintage minded newcomers from getting involved. I have always felt that vintage or historic racing should have stricter rules concerning what can be done or added to a motor to truly be considered "vintage". This is why I am proposing a new "Historic" V4 class that can act as a true entry level class for many upstart and vintage minded racers. Here is what I have submitted to the SCTA rules committee :
Issue:
When the V4F (Vintage 4 Flathead) engine class was created it was intended to be a vintage entry level class. Further more, it was designed to promote the original intent and history of the V4F engines. But since many modern technologies were allowed and not restricted, it has very much taken away from the original intent and become a much harder class to enter due to the technical know how and financial cost of such items as EFI, Computer data control, and modern electronic ignitions.
Desired outcome:
Create a new entry level engine class that can be run in many Lakesters that are currently running today. The class will only be allowed in the Lakester class.(for now).
We propose a Single Class Only! The class would be called HV4F/GL (Historic Vintage 4 Flathead / Gas Lakester). No Fuel. No Blowers.
Reason change is necessary:
There is a lot of interest in an entry level Historic V4F class and the achievable speeds and lower costs will attract more newcomers to the sport.
What are the side effects:
I do not foresee any side affects. Since this will be a new engine class, it will not effect any current records. No records will have to be moved or modified.
And since it's only one engine class in an existing body class it will require little addition to the rule book.
Desired rule book wording:
In Section 2.A.1, after paragraph # 12 (V4F section)
Engine class: HV4F (Historic Vintage 4 cylinder Flathead) Only Permitted in /GL (Gas Lakester Class)
As described in V4F section above, but with fewer Permitted Modifications. For detailed explanation on Permitted and Prohibited Modifications in this class, please consult the V4/V4F Guide. The Guide is available from the
Committee Chair (section 16), the SCTA office (page 3) or on the SCTA-BNI website (www.scta-bni.org).
An addendum can be added to the existing V4/V4F Guide.
No modifications to stock blocks other than porting of stock ports, addition of insert bearings, and modification for oil seals. Crankshaft or camshaft main journal girdles are prohibited. Permitted to reverse intake and exhaust ports. Permitted to install port dividers. Permitted to perform repairs on damaged blocks. Permitted to fill water jackets and water ports on block. Additional head studs can be added but not outside of the block. No computers of any kind, even for data acquisition. Magneto or points distributor only. No crank trigger or computer controlled electronic ignition. Carburetor or mechanical fuel injection only, no electric fuel injection. Transmissions: Automatic or manual, but must be manually shifted.
This is obviously a rough draft and many small details can be discussed and ironed out, but it's a good starting point to creating a truly vintage/historic class of racing to not only attract new interested start ups, but also to honor the history and tradition of this beloved sport.
I would love to hear from you on your thoughts and your level of support for such a new class. The SCTA rules committee meeting is less than a week away and I would love to get an idea of how many of you are in favor of this class as I will be presenting it at the meeting.
Thank you for your time and I look forward to racing with you all for many years to come.
-
Well thought out Bobby. I personally have too many cylinders but someday............ :cheers: Wayno
-
I like it!
Only one suggestion:
Perhaps change "No modifications to stock blocks other than porting of stock ports, addition of insert bearings, and modification for oil seals." to "No modifications to stock blocks other than porting of stock ports, addition of insert bearings, and modification for oil seals and full pressurization."
Or did you intend to leave that out?
Mike
-
why no data aq? don't you want to know why you blew it up?
-
I think this is a great idea and eventually could be applied to other body classes. It's definetly a move in the right direction for a lot of racers. I remember the days when a racer didn't have to mortgage his house in order to make it to the salt.
-
What about cranks and rods?
-
Bobby,
I do not have a horse in this race but I really think you are on the right path. I also think this rules modification should eventually include the streamliner class and even the XF class as there are a lot of people that would like to run a flat head V8 with "classic" speed equipment in both the lakester and streamliner classes but those classes are now dominated by electronic controls and extensive block and engine modifications. If there was a vote involved in this you would certainly have mine. Great idea! and about time.
Rex
-
Why not just go back to the V4F rules as they were originally? Except for the limit to fuel modified roadsters. In got stepped up really fast
-
4-barrel Mike,..... That's what I meant, .. Modify seals for full pressure.
Nathan Stewart,.... Like I said, it's just a rough draft, I'm sure data acquisition would be Ok, I just left it out to make it easy to enforce the "no computer" rule.
But I'm open to the idea.
IndyMike,...... I agree, I think everyone would love to see a true "Historic" engine class for all body styles, I only picked Lakester because you have to start somewhere, and there are more people running V4F in that class than any other.
Sparky,...... Cranks and rods can be anything you want, as long as there is only 3 stock mains in the block.
Rex Schimmer,..... Thanks for the support, there's is definitely more interest in this than I even thought there would be.
RichFox,....... There's really no "Going Back" in the SCTA. Anytime you do that, you have to take peoples records away and nobody likes that. So the least harmful way is to just start anew.
Thanks for the feedback. I'm not sure if the SCTA will recognize this new class or not, but at least it opens a conversation into what is truly "vintage" or "historic" and what isn't, as well as where people's interest lie for the future.
Keep the feedback coming !
-
Bobby, I am not sure what I think about this. I think I like the idea? I am one who cherishes our history but I do not have a lot of input. Looking forward to see how it plays out! BTW, that beer sampler will get to you before the holidays! :cheers:
-
Sounds like the "ball" might be rollin'. I'm pretty sure "the board" will be easy to work with on this one.
IM
-
Seems like quite a few proposed restrictions would be really hard to verify.....
Just sayin....
~JH
-
Bobby,
I like the idea. Don't allow computers even for data acquisition. Make people read spark plugs. Only allow EGT gauges and two max. Keep it real simple.
I still have my Flathead V8 project that was made for a class just like what you are proposing. I shelved it when people started spending absurd amounts of money on Flathead V8's.
Maybe a class like this needs to be a claimer class in that anyone can buy the motor for XXX amount or you don't get the record. That would be one way hopefully to keep the guys who have money at an arms length.
I wish you the best, but you know how the clubs look at new classes.
Tom G.
-
I seem to remember that it takes at least 3 racers with serious, serious interest (i.e. have a car already or building one that would run in the new class) for SCTA to create a new class.
Willi
-
Well being one of the original entries that ran when V4F was only allowed in gas mod roadster, I'll weigh in with my $.02...
- The gents that originally created the V4F class were in fact some pretty frugal folks and did intend on the class on being "economical" and "entry level" but that's long gone out the window. They now realize that there is no possible means for controlling how much money one should decide to spend building their banger nor is anyone in any kind of position to dictate that any one particular class be budget limited. Simply enough, you can't stop the guys who buy their motors from racing against the guys that build their motors. I'll come back to this point a few times.
- What really makes a class "entry level"? Costs? Speed? While us V4F racers aren't exactly going super fast, trying to go fast with rare, fragile speed parts isn't exactly cheap. What's a fully race prepped banger flathead from H&H cost? How fast does one go with a hot banger? 100 mph? 120 mph? There are probably a thousand other ways to go 100 or 120 mph in a lakester for much less than what a hot banger costs. Back to point one.... $$$ has no relevance. People are going to spend what they want to spend and those who spend more won't always be the fastest.
- When the class was first introduced there were many open and achievable records because it was a new class. Those new racers that you've inspired to get involved in the V4/V4F class are now your competitors. Records are meant to be broken and nothing says that the next new guy won't be the next record setter. I've set many records too. Some still stand, some don't. That's how racing goes.
- Racing isn't meant to be easy. Many competitors have spent countless hours and dollars going out and running as fast as they can and whether it be money, luck, or skill, there's only ever going to be one "fastest guy" in the class. Someone having more "technical know how" also has no relevance to what we do. If you're a better engine builder/tuner than someone else, you'll go faster than they will. What we did with EFI on our banger this year could have easily been done by anyone with a dyno and some tuning skills with a carb or mechanical injection setup. EFI is not magical nor is it necessarily "high dollar". It does not just bolt on and fix the siamesed intake port problem that a Model A/B has. It took a lot of time to make it work right. We've been running the V4/V4F class for 15 years now and we've started to figure out what works and what doesn't. I don't expect someone just getting into the class to be very competitive as racing these engines is not easy.
- Back to EFI... no, it's not vintage but it's always been allowed on Special Construction cars. What we did with EFI this year put us on the same level as those who are running 4 intake ports. If we had the ability (aka money) to use an 8 port block we wouldn't need EFI. I used EFI to emulate the same behavior you'd see with 4 individual intake ports. I also 100% guarantee that we had significantly less money in our EFI setup than some of our competitors running with mechanical injection/carbs. Again, back to my first point.... cost has zero relevance to racing.
- This is lightly veiled as "just a single class" but just like the original V4F class expanded, this one class will probably be the first stage of what could be a full second set of classes that would not only apply to just V4F but to all vintage engine classes. This would effectively double the number of vintage engine classes. Many/most are already of the opinion that we have too many classes as it is.
- Consider this.... the engine is only one half of the combination. What happens when Jack Costella shows up with a totally vintage flathead banger in one of his super slick lakester cars and blows everyone away? Will someone then propose that a "vintage lakester" class be added to keep long skinny slippery "modern" cars from running against less aero "vintage" belly tanks?
- It seems like a lot of the support for this class is coming from people who have never once competed at an SCTA event (or aren't even SCTA members), or if they have it hasn't been in V4/V4F, but they like and "support" the idea. I don't know how far that will go with the SCTA based on previous experiences with other new class proposals.
Again, just my $.02. YR err, opinion, MV. Based on the arguments stated in the proposal and the fact that one class could potentially lead to many, I personally would vote against this.
-
In the DLRA there is an informal group called the "NAC 200 club", the Naturally Aspirated Carburetor club who award a t-shirt to anyone attaining 200mph NAC.
You've already got a few people running in the class, at the SCTA events. Why don't you, irrespective of whether the class is adopted by the SCTA keep a record of the cars running within the bounds of what you propose..... After a while your own little club might well have their proposal adopted and it could be implemented retrospectively because the times are already there....... Hmmm, a gentleman's agreement to compete under certain rules within the necessary requirements for tech. Once you've got a few people interested you can make a better shot at the rule suggestions for the class too.
Gee, bit of kool media sponsorship, few t-shirts, no, I'm not giving you a name :-D
-
Nate points out the "Slippery Slope" that very quickly changed V4F from what it was supposed ob to what it is. It starts with Data acquisition. If you roll on that, there lots of good reasons to allow more "advances". And as far as maintaining the stock 3 mains in the block. Not all V4 engines are Fords you know. Some have 5 mains. Stock. Ask the Montana Dodge Boys. I believe the original record in V4F/FMR was set with a Plymouth engine.
-
Great discussion! Now that we've been mentioned, I should chime in.
Bobby, while I greatly respect your recommendation, I do agree with several of the responses above that your new class would be difficult to police and could potentiallly morph into other classes which could become problematic. I clearly see both sides of the issue.
The reality is that, as stated above, especially by Nathan, engine R&D comes, as in our case, as a response to advances by other teams in order for us to stay competitive. The engine we built the first two years, easily fell under the definition of your new proposed class. But when other competitors started buying big buck motors from H&H, Joe boghosian, etc., we were forced to step up our game. And, for the record, that does not require purchasing a $30K plus motor from an outside builder. The only major expenses we have incurred since then are our crank, rods, and pistons, due to the fact that they are one-off pieces for a '28 Dodge motor. We build our own intakes and exhuast, cast our own heads at cost through our sponsor EDGY, and use valves, blowers, etc. that are readily purchased off eBay for 80% off. Trust me, I would rather not spend $2500 on a crank, but we are forced to do so in order to set records. But, our most major committment is not money, it's three guys busting their asses 51 weeks a year to stay competitive.
Now, that being said, while we're on the subject of V4F, I have to chime in on retro-actively changing rules.
I see that the following rule change for the V4F class has been proposed for 2013 -
Issue: Confusion with "Any ignition system may be used" while EFI and
computers are specifically prohibited elsewhere.
Rulebook Section: 2.A.1 #4 Rulebook Page No: 18
Desired Outcome: Make it clear that computerized/programmable ignitions
systems are NOT allowed in vintage bodies using vintage engines.
Reason for Chg: Wording is ambiguous and participants think that
computerized/programmable ignitions are allowed in vintage bodies using
vintage engines.
Side Effects: Makes a rule clearer and easier to understand.
Desired Rulebook Wording: 4. Any type of non-computerized,
non-programmable ignition system may be used.
While we truly understand, and support the desire to keep the V4F class a pure as possible, we do have an issue with a proposed retroactive rule change that effectively eliminates us from future competition. Our entire engine program and chassis was developed around the current rules which clearly state "Any ignition system may be used". This was further clarified to us by Dan Warner in 2009 when we discussed, and he approved, our MSD crank trigger ignition system. We not only "think" computerized ignition systems are allowed, we were told several times by Jolliffe, Warner, Stewart, and Davies that they indeed are legal. For the record, we have run a MSD 6212 Digital crank trigger ignition since 2008, and have followed these gentlemen's interpretation of the current rules to a T, meaning we have no reactive electronics based on signals from the engine (boost timing retard, knock sensors, etc.).
We are seriously hoping that we are somehow misinterpreting the proposed change. If what is being asked is for clarification of what is not permitted, which we have been told multiple times is electronic sensors that change or adjust ignition system parameters during the course of a run, then we fully support the clarification. As you may well know a crank trigger system requires programming on the front end to create an ignition timing curve, as there is no means for mechanical or vacuum advance, so the wording banning programmable systems is not possible.
As I stated above, our interpretation of the above rule change would effectively permanently eliminate us from competition. Our three custom cylinder heads (different compression ratios) have been cast with no provision for a distributor. Our one-off camshaft has no provision for a distributor gear. Our engine compartment has no additional room for a front mounted distributor of any kind. Our blower pulley system leaves no provision to mount anything additional on the front of the engine. Our current engine program is the culmination of five years of time, research, development, and creation of specialized one off parts, dyno time, flowbench work, and thousands of hours in machine shop... and is entirely based around the current rules. It would be absolutely cost prohibitive for us, or others using crank trigger ignitions to start over from scratch.
If we are misinterpreting the proposal, then we strongly recommend further clarity in the wording of what is being suggested to simply state -
Any ignition system may be used that does not reactively electronically control ignition system parameters during the course of a run.
But, If we are reading the proposed wording correctly, then we recommend not imposing a retroactive rule change that will permanently eliminate us and others from a sport that we have a deep passion for, and have strived to be excellent ambassadors of.
Thanks for listening,
Pedro
-
I don’t know that making a limited prep, vintage spec banger is actually any cheaper than going the whole hog. If the motor in my Midget is analogous, I can say that the guys running distributors and SU carbs in vintage sports car events have easily spent as much money - and often times more – than I have.
Does it really require a whole new class within the system to work? What if you were to delineate a sub-class within the current class? You would be able to recognize achievement with “vintage” engine building techniques and technology, ensure a uniform build standard throughout the entire class, and still permit the new ‘historic’ engine formula to compete against each other and those in the same overarching class.
I guess I’m thinking it would be a tough one to swallow if you bought into the new class, and set a record that might have eclipsed the “old” class record, but you weren’t running on it. If it’s a sub class, you would be able to run on both simultaneously.
HV4F/GL could compete in the V4F/GL, but not vice-versa.
-
Pedro; I don't think Bobby's suggestion would remove you from competition. It would not effect you at all. You could stay in the class you are in and let the HV4F cars do what they want. But as much as this class seems to be exactly what my Plymouth was built as. I doubt the SCTA will want to have another V4F class.
-
As much as I don't have anything to do with this, I think Chris (MM) is putting forth a good idea. Whether policing the veracity of the claiming winners is possible -- just having the sub-group up and running will give those choosing to run in it a place to run. Once the "class" is started and there are a number of entries/successful "records" - the list can be presented to SCTA for consideration as a new class. When they see the number of entrants and the number of participants they may more easily be swayed to consider the class in a favorable light. Good thinkin'
Dobie I mean Chris.
-
. Good thinkin'Dobie I mean Chris.
Thalia Meninger told you to say that. :wink: Wayno
-
I agree with Dr. Goggles and some of the others about forming a club or group who operate inside scta classes but keep track of their own records. In my opinion it would technology limited "1950 time period" club. You could also do your own regrouping to original A-B-C-D engine classes if preferred to give a place for small cubic inch fours and V8-60 flatheads to feel wanted. Bodies in lakester could be limited to period correct bellytanks and streamliners only vintage styled.
Granted I only have one year experience at this, but I had a great time competing amoung ourselves with some of the other XF/GL cars that to me were 1950's period correct technology. Everyone is a long way off the record but still having a good time. For me, I don't need a new class with a technology limit to make me more competitive, if I truly wanted to be competitive in XF/GL I would not have built a mechanical fuel injected flathead powered bellytank. But I built the car I wanted to build, to a time period I saw appropriate. I also agree that limiting technology would not make a huge difference in affordability, those few items would be a small protion of the overall vehicle.
I can fully appreciate a model A or a flathead with port reversals, efi, turbos, or anything else. It is interesting to see the limits that can be pushed from such early pieces of iron. However, if there is a big enough following for the truly vintage, they could easily form their own little group and give some recognition for those with slightly different goals.
Just my thoughts, Andy
-
Pedro; I don't think Bobby's suggestion would remove you from competition. It would not effect you at all.
Rich, Bobby's rule proposal wouldn't make Pete's ignition illegal but my rule proposal (what he mentioned in his post) would. The problem has been that people have been ignoring the fact that rule #4, which says "any ignition system may be used", is lead by rule #2 which says "computers are allowed for data collection purposes only" and assuming that they can run a computerized, programmable ignition system which isn't true and never has been true (ask the Vintage Engine Committee Chair). All four of the four rules apply. Thus, I'm proposing that we add two simpe words into the rule to clarify what has always been the rule.... no computerized, programmable ignition systems! Computers aren't vintage. Never have been, never will be. Calling an MSD 6212 a "crank trigger igntion" is ambiguous. It's a computerized, programmable (through PC software or hand held programmer) ignition system that has the capability of using a crank trigger as a trigger input signal. There are simple, non-computerized, non-programmable ignition systems available that use a crank trigger to actually trigger the ignition like a set of points. Those types of systems are fine because you're simply replacing points with a different type of trigger.
An MSD 6212 or MSD 7535 is basically a stand alone engine mangement system that handles ignition control only. Here's what an MSD 6212 can do:
Start retard
Multi-stage retard
Retard per gear position
Individual cylinder timing control
Boost retard
We might as well start allowing EFI for vintage engines in vintage bodies if we continue to allow these ignitions systems to be used. How can anybody argue for the use of these types of systems when you have to pull out a PC laptop to "tune" them? How does that follow the restriction that the class be limited to older technology? Simply enough, it doesn't.
-
Pedro; I don't think Bobby's suggestion would remove you from competition. It would not effect you at all. You could stay in the class you are in and let the HV4F cars do what they want. But as much as this class seems to be exactly what my Plymouth was built as. I doubt the SCTA will want to have another V4F class.
Rich, I'm not talking about Bobby's proposed rule change in my rant. I'm speaking to a second rule proposed this year that wants to redefine the "any ignition may be used" part of the current V4F rules. I should have made a second, separate post.
-
NATHAN, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT ~ MY POINT IS SIMPLY THAT RETRO-ACTIVELY COMPLETELY CHANGING A RULE (ANY RULE) IS BS. WHAT YOU ARE WITNESSING ARE 'UNINTEDED CONSEQUENCES' OF A RULE THAT SHOULD HAVE (IN YOU AND YOUR DAD'S OPINION) BEEN WORDED DIFFERENTLY IN THE PAST. RETROACTIVELY COMPLETELY CHANGING A RULE BECAUSE SOME DISLIKE THE OUTCOME OF THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES IS NOT THE ANSWER, ESPECIALLY IF IT DIRECTLY IMPACTS EXISTING COMPETITORS OR RECORDS. IF POOR WORDING OF THE INITIAL RULE IS THE ISSUE, THEN REFINE THE INITIAL RULE TO ELIMINATE THE CONCERNS, BUT DON'T CHANGE THE RULE ALTOGETHER.
-
Nathan, I totally get it, and I never had any high hopes for getting the SCTA to actually create a new class, but I wanted to throw it out there and see what you and other people thought and start a discussion on the matter. And I'm sure that you and many others wish that things would have been better defined years ago when the V4 class was first created to limit the use things like Volvo and Mitsubishi heads being slapped on an 80 year old blocks, but it's too late now.
But obviously good lessons learned for the future.
However, many of you had a great idea of forming a separate club that could award and acknowledge achievements made by individuals breaking certain speeds with vintage technology and vintage body styles. And that could be done for any motor, Flathead V-8, four bangers, Jimmy 6's etc. I'll have to give that some serious thought, I mean, when Mark from Hop-Up mag had his 100 club, there were a bunch of new guys that built cars and went racing just to get a T-shirt. I know I was thrilled when I got mine ! So that might be a fun solution without too much hassle.
Anyway, thanks for chiming in on the topic, I appreciate it.
-
Pedro; I don't think Bobby's suggestion would remove you from competition. It would not effect you at all. You could stay in the class you are in and let the HV4F cars do what they want. But as much as this class seems to be exactly what my Plymouth was built as. I doubt the SCTA will want to have another V4F class.
Rich, I'm not talking about Bobby's proposed rule change in my rant. I'm speaking to a second rule proposed this year that wants to redefine the "any ignition may be used" part of the current V4F rules. I should have made a second, separate post.
OK. I will try to read these things more closely in the future
-
NATHAN, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT ~ MY POINT IS SIMPLY THAT RETRO-ACTIVELY COMPLETELY CHANGING A RULE (ANY RULE) IS BS. WHAT YOU ARE WITNESSING ARE 'UNINTEDED CONSEQUENCES' OF A RULE THAT SHOULD HAVE (IN YOU AND YOUR DAD'S OPINION) BEEN WORDED DIFFERENTLY IN THE PAST. RETROACTIVELY COMPLETELY CHANGING A RULE BECAUSE SOME DISLIKE THE OUTCOME OF THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES IS NOT THE ANSWER, ESPECIALLY IF IT DIRECTLY IMPACTS EXISTING COMPETITORS OR RECORDS. IF POOR WORDING OF THE INITIAL RULE IS THE ISSUE, THEN REFINE THE INITIAL RULE TO ELIMINATE THE CONCERNS, BUT DON'T CHANGE THE RULE ALTOGETHER.
Pete, the rule is not changing. Read rule #2: no computers except for data collection. What you're witnessing is the clarification of a rule. Rule clarification has been done many many times for many many years. I believe Roy Creel has an almost famous saying for this that goes "same rule, just more words". You will not be the first racer to be impacted by a rule change. People have lost records due to rule changes and cars have become illegal because of rule changes. What you might think is BS has been happening since long before you arrived on the salt. And I'm doing exactly what you're saying in your last sentence: initial rule was poorly worded so I am proposing that it now be refined. The rule is not being changed just clarified.
Your defense about being okay'd to use a "crank trigger ignition" by the Vintage Engine Committe Chair is not very solid. You were contacted two years ago by email by the Committee Chair at my request because of this conversation: http://www.landracing.com/forum/index.php/topic,1912.0.html (http://www.landracing.com/forum/index.php/topic,1912.0.html) - see reply #28. When asked what kind of ignition you used your reply was that you use an MSD crank trigger ignition. What you failed to mention (intentionally or not) at that time is that the "crank trigger ignition" you use is in fact a fully computerized, programmable ignition system. The reply given back to you from the Committe Chair, based on your description of your igntion system being a "crank trigger ignition" that had no re-active electronic controls was that it was what's intended for use as an ignition because it had no computerized functionality.
Had you been more forthcoming about the type of ignition system you used, you would have known two years ago that the computerized, programmable ignition system you use isn't allowed for use on a vintage engine in a vintage body.
Based on the all caps defense statement, I'm sure you're concerned about this affecting you which it obviously could if passed. Unfortunately, this has gone too far for too long and it's time to reel it back in. I fully support the point of the vintage engine class being historically authentic and I know that many other competitors support this ideology as well. Please be aware that this isn't targeted at you or any other competitor in particular. It's a problem and has been a problem for a while and in an interest in preserving the finer points of what the class is supposed to be (vintage) I will continue to support this proposal.
-
The all caps was because my cap lock was on, not because I'm pissed... although I'm certainly getting there quickly... especially the 'more forthcoming' and 'losing records' part.
In my book, and pretty much anyone elses, ANY means ANY (I actually looked it up)... and just because an ignition has certain capabilities, doesn't mean they are, or have been utilized. The ignition you speak of has been in our car for FIVE YEARS and we've been through tech with it SEVEN times. Like I said above Dan Warner specifically came to our pits in 2009 to ask for details, and it was clearly pointed out to us that ANY ingnition may be used as long as it doesn't have sensors that change ignition parameters during the course of a run. Are you telling Jolliffe, Kiwi Steve and Warner they are wrong?
Last year it was an 11 Page (ELEVEN {please note CAPS}) addendum to the V4F class.
Now, this year it's ignition systems.
With the 2012 addendum, V4F already has the longest rule section in the SCTA... by about, oh, 10 7/8 pages.
When will the retro-active rule making madness stop?
What happens when someone Googles "turbocharger" and finds it was patented and used on a race car almost 100 years ago? http://en.turbolader.net/Technology/History.aspx Are we going to change the rules again to add them?
... or what about when George Poteet decides to go V4Fing and kicks everybody's A** by 20+ MPH.
Outsmarting/outperforming the competition is by nature the definiton of any type of racing... vintage, horse, or otherwise. Did the SCCA change the rules when Vic Edelbrock and Craig Jackson decided to go Vintage Trans Am racing and build 650 HP naturally aspirated single 4bbl 302 CI small blocks? No, the other guys built new motors.
One doesn't simply change the rules when one doesn't like the outcome of an oversite.
I think I'm going to go into work tomorrow and tell my staff that in June when I said, "I WILL give you all a Christmas bonus", I actually meant "I MIGHT give you all a Christmas bonus". Lets see how that goes over.
ANY means ANY.
I'm going go have a beer... :cheers:
-
PS ~ Bobby, I'm sorry for screwing up your post :-o
-
I'm not sure, but I think I know what Bobby G. was saying in his first post. Provide an ENTRY LEVEL class for new racers (or old) to build a car with their two hands. (The lakester class would be ideal). Learning how to follow the rule book on construction practice, learning from other racers on "how it's done" at the salt and so forth. In other words, the basics. From this level they would be a little more ready to transition to other classes. (ie. blower explosions, spins, torn up seat upolstery, etc.). My wife's Buick will probably go 120 mph but to go across the salt in an open wheel car with an open (or not) cockpit with rock hard suspension and your butt inches from the ground is a lot of fun. The only thing I can see that might dampen this idea would be a shortage of blocks and cranks (Ford). I don't know about Willys stuff but there just might be enough out there (non Ford) to make it happen. Something to kick around anyway.
Indymike
-
- It seems like a lot of the support for this class is coming from people who have never once competed at an SCTA event (or aren't even SCTA members)
:? :? :?
Tom G.
-
Well, if the intent is indeed to set it up as an entry level class, a pre ’35 flathead banger formula would not be the way to go. An entry level class would use something more commonly available with less esoteric parts and problems to overcome.
No, this is more about tradition than entry level. I support that idea, but I don’t buy the argument that it would be less costly. A maximized EFI Banger with a crank trigger and data acquisition vs. a mechanical fuel injection set up with reversed ports and a dual point Mallory? Given the advancements in recent years, the future projection on the cost of these two different set-ups is clearly in favor of the EFI motor.
Software is getting cheaper by the hour whereas the cost of a mechanical fuel injection setup and a custom cam grind is tied to the labor needed to make it. There are few suppliers, and the demand is low and diminishing daily.
Think about the cost of vintage sports car racing and Formula Vee. As they get older, they get more expensive, and increasingly so when the class requires “period correct” parts or equivalents.
I think you’d be fooling yourself into thinking that this would be a cost saving measure.
-
Pete, comment about losing records is merely to point out that people have lost records in the past because of rule changes. Wasn't suggesting that your records were at risk.
Like I keep saying, all four of the four rules come into play. Rule 2 says no computers except for data collection and rule 4 was meant to allow for any non-computerized ignition (mag, distributor, cdi, etc). I know this because the Committee Chair told me that this was his intention (he was the one who changed the wording) and his reasoning for writing the rule that ways it's written was that people would read and apply the four rules together. After seeing that people have tunnel vision and have zoned in on "any" and completely forgetting that rule 2 still applies, I have submitted my proposal so that it can be undeniably clear.
You know that "tech" doesn't check for class legality. You can go through tech a million times with a car that's completely illegal for any particular class and so long as it passes safety tech, you can run (ala T/O). It is not and never has been an inspectors job to class anyone's car for them. Kiwi is tech and his policy is to refer questions to appropriate personnel. I have no idea what authority Jolliffe has in telling you what's legal or not and yes, even Dan has made mistakes before (he is human after all). BTW I submitted a rule proposal that would require that class/category committees take a more active part in checking cars/engines for legality before records are certified which should greatly reduce the chances of a record being questioned or protested. This whole thing is a pretty good example where something like this would have been helpful to everyone involved.
There is no recorded use of turbochargers in our form of racing until well into the 60's. The era which the vintage engine category most closely targets is a bit older than that. I don't foresee turbo's ever becoming legal for use on vintage engines in vintage bodies regardless of them being used on a race car a hundred years ago.
The rule isn't being changed, only clarified. Do I sound like a broken record yet 'cause I feel like I saying the same thing over and over. Anyways, the point of all the "retro-active" rules in the V4F guide is to draw a line and finally say what's allowed and what isn't otherwise you'd be seeing engines that had zero resemblance to their predecessors (it was starting to happen). Think of that guide as a means for protecting you and other competitors from those who think that building a vintage banger means completely hogging out the inside of a block and only using the exterior as an outer shell. Your ignition system may do more than what you're using it to do but you still gotta pump your engine or pull your head to verify displacement. I don't think they'll start accepting someone's word of honor as being good enough although I'd entertain any suggestions you might have for policing how everyone's ignition system works.
Nonetheless, I still think vintage should be vintage and a lot of others think it should be too. Anyways, it's late, I'm tired, and my only car got rear ended and totaled today. I'm leaving it up to the clubs to vote on.
-
- It seems like a lot of the support for this class is coming from people who have never once competed at an SCTA event (or aren't even SCTA members)
:? :? :?
Tom G.
Tom, there's a lot of support for this on the HAMB and its coming from people who do not race. While everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion and are more than welcome to support the idea as much as they want, SCTA members and especially those members who actually run in the particular class in question are really the ones who will decide what goes or what doesn't. You could have all the outside support in the world but if your fellow SCTA members don't like it, it won't fly. That's what my point was.
-
- It seems like a lot of the support for this class is coming from people who have never once competed at an SCTA event (or aren't even SCTA members)
:? :? :?
Tom G.
Tom, there's a lot of support for this on the HAMB and its coming from people who do not race. While everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion and are more than welcome to support the idea as much as they want, SCTA members and especially those members who actually run in the particular class in question are really the ones who will decide what goes or what doesn't. You could have all the outside support in the world but if your fellow SCTA members don't like it, it won't fly. That's what my point was.
I don't have a dog in any of the fights goin on here. I made my point about it being easy to administer a chapter "unofficially" because it will satisfy those who have an interest, whether they are racing or not.There is a lot of interest in the rosy view of forties and fifties styled salt cars and when there is a huge community of quite pedantic hot-rodders on boards like the HAMB of course there will be a lot of interest in a period correct banger tank class,but as for making it a class? The closer you get to it the harder it is to define. So, P38? open cockpit? because as someone said earlier what happens when Jack shows up with a Nebulous car and a class legal motor?
Our tank has a 1990's era passenger car engine and is built from a tank that ( as far as we know) no-one had used before, we weren't ever going to try and build a period correct piece but I have every admiration for those that do. However, personally I see a purity in lakesters and liners that is lessened when the rules become more complicated. To me the anything goes credo is the main appeal in special construction. I think that was what Bill Burke thought.
BTW Indymike , a bellytank sure ain't "entry level", you have to be committed (X2) to build your own car from scratch, and none of this, is cheap. :cheers:
-
All;
"low cost racing" is an myth, period. We spend more than we can afford to serve this addiction, drugs are for the smart folks.
Rules are written to try and entice as many folks as possible. This is wrong in my opinion, it leaves too many loopholes for interpretation and then starts the creep and then folks start proposing another class.
IMHO, this is what I would do, write a set of rules for a single brand/design motor, ie. Ford Banger.
Detail out a set of rules with dimensions, and make it simple to tech.
Carb only, model no. xxxxxx
Ignition, any dist triggered by points only (single or dual)
Crank assy 3 bearing only pressurized and inserted allowed max journal dia xx.xx
Piston must have x rings, min width xx.xx, must have slotted/slit skirt.
Rods, no Ti, must be xx.xx center dist inserted allowed.
While this may seem too restrictive, it serves to allow for anyone who wants to enter the game with somewhat competitive equipment.
The best racing I ever was involved with was this way, simple to tech and laid out for all to be competitive with.
Currently my V4 lakester has been to tech and is awaiting dyno time to baseline the motor. My goal to be at the salt next year.
Best of luck, John
-
Nathan, you are right about a fair amount of interest in vintage styled tanks (didn't we go through this discussion last year?). Our lakester is going a different direction so my interest here is from the sidelines as we are only running a vintage engine. I love tradtional belly tanks so am interested in what goeas on. It was very cool last year to see the amount of tanks on the salt.
-
OK, I'm back at it, and will try to get back to Bobby's original point without straying.
Bobby,
I completely appreciate your, and others, desire to run a totally historic engine/chassis package. It is guys like you that inspired us to get into the V4F game. I have pictures of your stuff all over my garage wall, your new vintage Indy inspired roadster is my screensaver, and I love what you guys do, and the class with which you do it. I also completely understand your quest to keep it pure, especially since you own a vintage speed shop that your tank is the calling card for.
Getting a 100 MPH Hop Up shirt on the first-ever drive of our car was a thrill and honor I will never forget. When we built our car, I told my friends "I will happy if it runs, stoked if it doesn't blow up, and elated if it goes 100 MPH". But, if speed is like crack, then records are like heroin, and things change. Once happy with 100 MPH and a shirt, our new goal is to be the first V4F roadster to 150... so maybe meth is a better analogy.
I truly think there is room for both types of racers in vintage classes. If you look at the growing success of Bonneville in the past few years, no one can argue that much of that has been spurred by the HAMBers, traditional rodders, and retro-vintage enthusiasts.
But, that being said, the ultimate goal of landspeed racing is to set records, so I don't know how those two goals can jive in the same class.
That being said, I also struggle with how one doesn't run into the same rule problems with the new class down the road. Going faster and setting records will always be the goal, which requires constant tweaking and R&D, which will ultimately raise eyebrows, and make some feel the need to further restrict innovation.
The reality is that within the parameters of the existing V4F rules, several cars have raised the stakes in the last three years. Like I said in an earlier post, for three Montana hicks working out of two car garage with a one-off Dodge motor to stay competitive against the likes of Joe Bogoshian and H&H has become a full-time endeavor... not to mention an extremely inspiring challenge. I'll get back to my anti-Dodge conspiracy theories later.
Good luck in your quest.
Pedro
-
I sent a personel e-mail to Bobby a few days ago; but feel the need to post my thoughts on here for all to see. I have am the guy that drives the model A truck around cleaning the out houses and picking up the trash. I don't need to have any more participants and spectators! I also have a large pile of parts to build a car that fits this discussion. I will run a roadster at the USFRA meet in the 130 Club. With very simple and almost affordable rules I can build and run a car on the Bonneville salt flats. $150 for five runs! They run go carts, lawn mowers, bar stools, 36 hp VWs. The car must be "streetable" and for 2 or more people. Sorry, the lakesters are out. We can police our own rules. We needed rear engined roadsters like we need another 500 entries at Speed Week. They did it right. Built and showed up with 3 or 4 cars and ran time only and said to the board "we are here and ready to run". Take a look at the USAFRA 130 Club!
-
A big thank you to everyone on here that chimed in with your honest opinions ! It's discussion groups like this that really help work out a lot of bugs and get an idea of the opinions of the majority. I tend to live in my own antiquated world and forget sometimes what's happening around me so it's a good resource for me to hear your thoughts.
I realize after reading everyone's post that the SCTA REALLY doesn't need or want to deal with another V4 class, and with out the support of the Stewarts and Creel and others it will never pass, so I will be pulling my application before Saturday so I don't waste the boards time.
However !,... Since the door to this has been open, and there is some serious interest being shown, I would love to see sometime in the future an "Historic" class of land speed racing, either official or not that rewards the folks that do build a V-8 60 bellytank, or a V4F narrowed T-bucket, or a Packard straight 8 Indy car etc. with pre-1950 technology in mind. I'm just throwing it out there, and if anybody in the SCTA likes the idea for the future, I'd love to help.
Well, like I said, Thank you again everyone, now I gotta go and find out how Turbos and EFI work. haha See you on the salt !
-
"V-8 60 bellytank, or a V4F narrowed T-bucket, or a Packard straight 8 Indy car etc."
I'd love to see any and all of them run, too. But they don't need a class (or probably even three classes for the ones mentioned).
But there is a class -- T.O. And, believe it or not, the tech officials even bend the rules a little with speed limits when it comes to a Time Only entry approximating an existing class. I could be wrong, but I don't remember anyone completely turned away at SpeedWeek.
So if someone wants to run an historic vehicles (and meets basic safety requirements), they can. But, let's be honest -- you build a car to current safety requirements and it's hard to make it look historic if you look closely. They don't want anybody to be thrown clear any more -- clear to Wendover.
Stan
-
- It seems like a lot of the support for this class is coming from people who have never once competed at an SCTA event (or aren't even SCTA members)
:? :? :?
Tom G.
Tom, there's a lot of support for this on the HAMB and its coming from people who do not race. While everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion and are more than welcome to support the idea as much as they want, SCTA members and especially those members who actually run in the particular class in question are really the ones who will decide what goes or what doesn't. You could have all the outside support in the world but if your fellow SCTA members don't like it, it won't fly. That's what my point was.
Nathan,
Thanks for the reply. I thought you were talking about the people who had replied on this board and that is why the :?
Tom G.
-
Any word on yesterdays meeting? :? :-D :cry: :-o :cheers:
-
...
"low cost racing" is an myth, period. We spend more than we can afford to serve this addiction, drugs are for the smart folks.
...
Very true. However, what is important for good mental health (I don't qualify), is to set a very specific goal, and a budget, and STOP when you reach it.
Much like most Bville entries stopping power, 'braking up is hard to do'...
We exceeded our performance goals by a huge margin, and our budget by 10 fold. Then we still kept at it. Finally, poverty fixed the problem.
Regardless of some attitudes you might encounter, there is nothing evil about "informal records". Oddly enough, some of those who scold folk who aim at informal records, actually know a lot of those kinds of records and recall them with fondness. I think that is what causes the class "explosion"? I don't know, but it is often interesting to write down or remember when something ran that was memorable.
I will remember my informal records far better than the paper ones. The paper ones are from failed events or on the brakes to avoid an unnecessary tech limit, or with the engine off and chute out beforehand.
However if you want a budget class of any kind, you need to cap engine mods. There is no serious limits to engine mods. Even production can run 100% aftermarket driveline pieces. $100,000 "production" engine? Sure, if you can afford it, it's allowed. Beryllium pistons are outlawed by F1 due to cost but are legal for SCTA.
If Toyota wanted any existing SCTA record, they could buy it. Apple could hold all the records if they wanted. What caps the spending today is the wealth of the car owner, there isn't any major players in most classes. If Ford wants your record for whatever reason, it's theirs, and there ain't much you can do about it.
-
Set a very specific goal, and a budget, and STOP when you reach it.
We exceeded our performance goals by a huge margin, and our budget by 10 fold. Then we still kept at it. Finally, poverty fixed the problem.
JustaRacer,
Very well written post and words to live by.....Not only in racing but life in general.
Gregg
-
An idea on a entry class is to limit the induction to a single, specific and small carburetor. It would not make a lot of difference on how much money was spent on the engine. It would have a limited amount of mixture and that is all it gets. The specified carb could be just big enough for a well built four cylinder to use all of the mixture, or a moderately built six, or a lightly hopped up eight. Easy to enforce. The carb is up and in plain view.
-
No
-
Since when is LSR supposed to be "spec" racing?
Willi
-
other than this question when is budget and vintage used in the same sentence
-
Please don't remove RACING from landspeed racing. This isn't a vintage car show, we are here to set landspeed records.
-
Spec=lame, just look at bracket racing :roll:
-
...for many its the american way...spec racing...spec living...
-
...for many its the american way...spec racing...spec living...
Which brings my favorite quote. "built to code" which means it was built to the lowest accepted standard, like passing with a D grade!
-
...the same carburetor "throat"..."intake" "income" "energy" etc .for all...lets see who can do the best
...its only "fair"...
-
FYI ~ V4F is not a Ford-only class, therefore it is impossible (God Forbid) for it to be a spec class. The differences between Ford, Dodge, Chevrolet, Plymouth, etc. engines of that era are incalculable, with absolutely no interchangability.
There is nothing broken about the current V4F rules as written.
-
I've watched this thread and kept quite, but decided to now weigh in.
First, about the 'spec' style class proposed by Wobblywalrus- Seriously?
Bobby, while I liked your initial proposal, I doubt it would fly. I think that EVEN if you got it started, there would always be those trying to get it changed, probably going down the same path it is now! To me, the club idea sounds very doable!
Pedro, I follow the Montana Boys's exploits with awe and admiration! You guys have done a helluva job getting those old Dodge 4 bangers moving!
Having said that, however, I have to say that I'm in favor of the rule change, so that electronics are kept out of the vintage class, and the playing field is level.
I know that this will negatively impact some of the cars out there, but I think that if a guy can get these old mills moving down the salt, he can change ignitions.
When I started the build, I figured I'd run a boost referenced MSDbox- after all, the rules said any ignition. I was diligent about running almost all of my build ideas through the tech deptartment, because I was new, and didn't want issues on the salt.
I was told absolutely no way! Ok, they didn't word it like that, but said no. We run a simple magneto now.
At Bonneville this year, I was careful to look at the other vintage setups VERY carefully, especially in impound. Guess what? The playing field is NOT level! Cars set records, and made it through impound with MSD boxes, boost referenced MSD boxes, etc!
So, either we need everyone to be able to run this stuff in vintage, or no one. I vote no one
Good luck with that Dodge. Garry and Craig said you had figured out some issues with the head, so I'll be watching you set new records next year, I'm betting! :cheers:
-
...for many its the american way...spec racing...spec living...
You can't have spec racing in LSR. Don't worry so much.
I can't believe so many people don't know what it is on a race forum.
-
But... electronics already ARE in vintage classes! Digital gauges, digital ignition boxes, computerized data loggers, etc are all currently approved and readily used.
And exactly what is "vintage" about a Fluidamper, crank trigger, MSD 6AL-2 box, A/F sensor, modern tires, fiberglass tonneau, hydraulic internal throwout bearings, serpentine or Gilmer belt, coil packs, etc., all which are currently approved and in use.
There is NO performance difference between optimizing your timing curve on a distributor with a Sun machine, or doing so in an electronic ignition box.
There are NO advantages with a digital ignition in a class where you already can't run EFI and can't use reactive electronics.
If this is approved it sets a dangerous precedent for changes to any of the other above items to be made on a whim, with no more basis than someone saying "It's not Vintage". I don't know about you, but scares the crap out of me!
-
But... electronics already ARE in vintage classes! Digital gauges, digital ignition boxes, computerized data loggers, etc are all currently approved and readily used.
And exactly what is "vintage" about a Fluidamper, crank trigger, MSD 6AL-2 box, A/F sensor, modern tires, fiberglass tonneau, hydraulic internal throwout bearings, serpentine or Gilmer belt, coil packs, etc., all which are currently approved and in use.
There is NO performance difference between optimizing your timing curve on a distributor with a Sun machine, or doing so in an electronic ignition box.
There are NO advantages with a digital ignition in a class where you already can't run EFI and can't use reactive electronics.
If this is approved it sets a dangerous precedent for changes to any of the other above items to be made on a whim, with no more basis than someone saying "It's not Vintage". I don't know about you, but scares the crap out of me!
Pedro, I agree that many of the parts, and much of the technology, that we use on these engines isn't vintage. I guess we'll have to chalk it up as progress?
The difference is these things are not prohibited in the rules- computers are.
The MSD 6AL-2 box is prohibited, as the rules say " computers are allowed for data collection only'. Isn't controlling timing, controlling an engine function?
MSD's description of the MSD 6AL-2 box:
MSD is excited to announce the next generation of 6-Series ignition controls – the 6AL-2! The all new ignition control combines a new housing, new digital controls and more power in a sleek package. Inside the new cast aluminum housing you'll find an advanced micro-controller that manages the timing and rpm of the ignition. The spark output of the new box has been turned up to 535 volts of primary voltage with spark energy reaching up to 135millijoules! The multiple sparks of the 6AL-2 burn in the cylinder for 20 degrees of crankshaft rotation to ensure complete combustion.Two more great features are the rev limits! There are two rev limiters; one for high end overrev protection and another you can activate off a clutch or transbrake to set a launch limit. This feature will help your car blast off the starting line! Adjustments are made via four rotary dials for 100 rpm increment control!The all new capacitive discharge ignition will easily connect to nearly any 12-volt negative ground distributor system.
If a micro-controller isn't a form of a computer, what is it?
What about the guys using MSD boxes and referencing boost to control the timing?
My point is, let's get everyone on the same playing field! If MSD boxes are allowed, then state it in the rules. Until then, according to the ruling I got, and the rule book, they are not legal.
I would love to run one on this boosted engine- I'm sure I could pick up some HP, and maybe it would help me hold of detonation at some point, if I referenced boost. I just don't see being allowed to do so.
I really don't see how this is a rule change. I see it as a clarification of two statements in the rulebook that contradict one another.
-
Spec=lame, just look at bracket racing :roll:
Bracket racing is the opposite of spec racing.
Bracket/Index racing = Run anything you like, but don't go too fast.
Spec Racing = Everyone runs the same stuff or even the exact same car (timed lap). The fastest guy wins. It's pure driving talent.
Can you outdrive everybody else? The only way to find out is via spec racing.
-
In LSR you only race the clocks, don't need anything else.Just a racer what I think is you should go to the introduce yourself section and tell us about yourself. I don't think anyone knows you or your back ground. Have you ever ran any LSR event or what other type of venue. You will get a lot more respect if you do the above. Let us know.Thanks in advance.
-
But... electronics already ARE in vintage classes! Digital gauges, digital ignition boxes, computerized data loggers, etc are all currently approved and readily used.
And exactly what is "vintage" about a Fluidamper, crank trigger, MSD 6AL-2 box, A/F sensor, modern tires, fiberglass tonneau, hydraulic internal throwout bearings, serpentine or Gilmer belt, coil packs, etc., all which are currently approved and in use.
There is NO performance difference between optimizing your timing curve on a distributor with a Sun machine, or doing so in an electronic ignition box.
There are NO advantages with a digital ignition in a class where you already can't run EFI and can't use reactive electronics.
If this is approved it sets a dangerous precedent for changes to any of the other above items to be made on a whim, with no more basis than someone saying "It's not Vintage". I don't know about you, but scares the crap out of me!
Pedro, I agree that many of the parts, and much of the technology, that we use on these engines isn't vintage. I guess we'll have to chalk it up as progress?
The difference is these things are not prohibited in the rules- computers are.
The MSD 6AL-2 box is prohibited, as the rules say " computers are allowed for data collection only'. Isn't controlling timing, controlling an engine function?
MSD's description of the MSD 6AL-2 box:
MSD is excited to announce the next generation of 6-Series ignition controls – the 6AL-2! The all new ignition control combines a new housing, new digital controls and more power in a sleek package. Inside the new cast aluminum housing you'll find an advanced micro-controller that manages the timing and rpm of the ignition. The spark output of the new box has been turned up to 535 volts of primary voltage with spark energy reaching up to 135millijoules! The multiple sparks of the 6AL-2 burn in the cylinder for 20 degrees of crankshaft rotation to ensure complete combustion.Two more great features are the rev limits! There are two rev limiters; one for high end overrev protection and another you can activate off a clutch or transbrake to set a launch limit. This feature will help your car blast off the starting line! Adjustments are made via four rotary dials for 100 rpm increment control!The all new capacitive discharge ignition will easily connect to nearly any 12-volt negative ground distributor system.
If a micro-controller isn't a form of a computer, what is it?
What about the guys using MSD boxes and referencing boost to control the timing?
My point is, let's get everyone on the same playing field! If MSD boxes are allowed, then state it in the rules. Until then, according to the ruling I got, and the rule book, they are not legal.
I would love to run one on this boosted engine- I'm sure I could pick up some HP, and maybe it would help me hold of detonation at some point, if I referenced boost. I just don't see being allowed to do so.
I really don't see how this is a rule change. I see it as a clarification of two statements in the rulebook that contradict one another.
Buddy,
You couldn't have argued my own case better if I had prompted you to do so. It is now apparant that you are not being CC'ed in the conversations between, Mike Stewart, Gig, Jolliffe, etc. My apologies, I thought you were and this most likely leads to your confusion about the points I've trying to make.
Here is an exact cut and paste of an email between Mike Stewart and me just this morning.
Pete,
You are correct about Garry Odbert, the e mail was 2011. I remembered it being more recent. But that's not the issue.
Your letter (item 2) would lead the reader to believe that crank triggers are no longer acceptable and that you would need to use the original design cam and install a distributer or magneto. Not true! Crank triggers are still legal to use. So, this would NOT lead to an expensive cam replacement, or the redesign and reconstruction of your engine compartment. Further, there are "ignition boxes" available that do not require programming with a computer that will provide the necessary timing functions and so on to make the ignition fully functional. You are running a MSD 6212 unit, as I understand it, which requires programming with a computer (lap top) or a hand held programming device. A MSD 6 AL 2 unit will provide the necessary ignition functions and does not require programming with a computer.
The whole point of the rules change proposal is to eliminate the use of computers in the vintage body with vintage engine classes. There were no computers during the vintage period. The current wording says computers may be used for data collection only. It also says any ignition may be used. By deduction that means any single point, dual point, dual coil battery or magneto ignition may be used since computers are to be used for data collection only. Simply put, this restores the original intention of the Rules as they were written.
Thank you for you response.
Best Regards,
Mike Stewart, Chairman
Vintage Engine Committee
My response this morning~
Mike,
The following is copied directly from the MSD website for the 6AL 2 you recommend us using instead of our 6212 ~
1.
All new housing, digital circuits and performance
Built-in 2-Step rev control – with rotary dials
Higher output with up to 135mJ and 535 volts
Accepts Hall-effect, points and mag pickup triggers
Managed by an efficient digital control
2. We purchased our MSD 6212 in late 2007 after lengthy discussions with MSD tech who told us that the 6212 was the only option for a distributorless 180 degree four cylinder if we wished to have a timing curve.
I called MSD tech again on Monday, re-read every option on their website, perused the various wiring diagrams, and confirmed the following two points~
There is no way to have a timing curve without either 1) a distributor, or 2) pre-programming a timing curve into a unit.
We cannot simply swap a 6AL 2 into our car as you suggest. We must either have a distributor OR two 6AL 2 units, but even that option would leave no provision for any timing curve.
3. The argument that a 6212 is not "vintage" doesn't hold water with me. The following items are legal but not vintage ~ Digital gauges, crank triggers, MSD 6AL 2 boxes, A/F sensors, modern tires, fiberglass tonneaus, automatic transmissions, fluid harmonic dampers, hydraulic internal throwout bearings, serpentine and gilmer belts, coil packs, etc.
4. Given that your suggested 6AL 2 is indeed "digital" as per the MSD website, what is your specific argument against a 6212, especially since it does not provide any performance advantage what-so-ever? Is it simply the word "computerized"? That make no sense! "Digital" isn't "vintage" either.
Thanks again for soliciting my input.
Sincerely,
Pete Hendrickson
I think this will help clarify the points I have been trying to state in my previous postings.
Secondly, you reinforce my position that the issue is reactive electronics. Determining whether a competitor is using boost reference to adjust timing can easily and quickly be discovered by seeing if their boost sensor is connected to their ignition box. In our case it is not, nor has it ever been. Given the low total timing needed to make a flathead run well, as well as the relatively low boost levels used in blown flathead motors, we have found no need to reduce total timing with boost.
If you PM me your email address, I will be happy to include you in all further correspondence with the Vintage Chair and his son Nathan who proposed the rule change.
Thanks, Pedro
-
Pedro, It seems I didn't fully understand the scope of your arguement!
I am not being cc'd on the conversation, although after reading this, I realize a copy was forwarded to me.
I'll pm you my email address.
Whatever the outcome, I hope to finally meet you on the salt next year, as I missed you this year! :cheers:
-
Pete, you'll have to excuse the Committee Chair's lack of knowledge with computerized, programmable igntion systems as they're not something he's very familiar with nor is he an MSD products specialist. The points he's getting at is that there are products that allow you to use a crank trigger without also requiring the use of a computerized, programmable ignition controller. You can not "program" an MSD 6A or 6AL box to have any control over the ignition timing. However, there is now a PC-programmable version of the MSD 6AL2 box available and this very clearly would NOT be allowed as it's a computerized, programmable ignition system.
No computers has ALWAYS been the rule. This has nothing to do with what you personally think is vintage or not or if your 6212 gives you an advantage or not. NO COMPUTERS! My proposal to add two simple words (non-computerized, non-programmable) should really drive this home and make it obviously clear. Never once has there ever been verbiage in the rule book that has said "computerized, programmable ignition system are allowed so long as they have no reactive functionality".
Buddy get's it:
Pedro, I agree that many of the parts, and much of the technology, that we use on these engines isn't vintage.
The difference is these things are not prohibited in the rules- computers are.
I really don't see how this is a rule change. I see it as a clarification of two statements in the rulebook that contradict one another.
-
Never once has there ever been verbiage in the rule book that has said "computerized, programmable ignition system are allowed so long as they have no reactive functionality".
You're absolutely correct. What rule book does say is, "ANY IGNITION MAY BE USED"
As you said last week, I'll leave this to the board now.
-
This post refers my earlier one about a spec carb as a limiting factor in a basic racing class. All classes are limited to some degree. Engine size, naturally aspirated, etc. By use of the intake as a restriction it will allow a lot of non-spec creativity and variability for what is underneath it. All of these problems with the details of electronics, etc. would be moot. A fellow with an old Dodge six could race against someone with a newer Chevy small block.
One benefit is that folks would be winning by making the best use of a limited resource, such as inducted fuel mixture. It would favor the person who could build fuel efficiency into a race vehicle. Another good thing is the fast guys think it is a lousy idea. They will not have any part of it and this gives the entry level folks a chance.
-
So I went to the rules committee meeting on Saturday, and I'm really glad I did, it was very interesting and enlightening to see the process by which rules clarification and new class are presentation and voted on. Even though my new V4F class proposal was voted down, It was really worth trying because it opened up a dialog about the "vintage historic" side of racing and I was able to express the frustrations of many, like myself, that want to race in vintage classes but don't want to have to compete against extremely modern technologies. But after the meeting, I have a new outlook, the board brought up a really great point, most of the rule restrictions that I was proposing in my V4F class already exist in cars running V4F in "Vintage body classes"! AHAA! That's what I'm missing, if I was running in a Vintage body class, instead of the "unlimited" Lakester class I wouldn't even be having this discussion.
Sooo,... can you guess where I'm going with this?
There's a vintage coupe class, a vintage roadster class, and even a vintage oval track and midget class,.. But I ask you this.... What's more historically iconic to LSR than a bellytank? It's the quintessential post war, hot rod, back yard ingenuity, single purpose vehicle to ever materialize from the roots of the SCTA.
So why isn't there a "vintage bellytank class"? There's at least 2-4 new bellytanks showing up at Bonneville every year.
At the meeting Steve Davis brought up a great point, even if the SCTA elected a new "historic" V4F class, what's to stop a Costello nebulous style lakester or a "car from the future" as I like to call them from putting in such motor and becoming untouchable from sheer aerodynamics. And he's absolutely right, it would leave all of us vintage minded racers as equally as frustrated as we were to start with. So, the real solution is the start a vintage bellytank or lakester class that can run all the vintage motors classes already in existence in the other vintage body classes. Brilliant!
So, that's where I'm at. Unfortunately I have to wait another 2 years before making it happen, but I agree it's the best solution in the long run, and one that I am now even more excited and passionate about.
As for the other topics that have spawned up on this thread, ie. computer boxes, I really can't comment, however, I'm sure whatever the board decides on will end up being better defined than it currently is now. So let's wait and see.
Thanks.
-
I do see where you're headed, but how do you codify a "vintage" bellytank?
At least in production based categories, you have established body designs, dimensions, and models to cue off of.
No two tanks are the same, even if they're built off of the same tank.
Bobby, I've viewed your car up close. I'd call it a traditional tank, and I suspect others would agree with that opinion, but it's an opinion, not a quantifiable, classifiable, inspectable determination.
How do you scrutineer a gut feeling?
There are other non-tank lakesters that give me the same sense of nostalgia - and I hate using that word, but I'm struggling to come up with a better one.
And don't get me wrong - I'm a hopeless romantic about this kind of thing. I'm running a 5 port, ohv inline with 3 mains that predates the small block Chevy, in a class against fuel injected OHC alloy block sports cars with better aero than I'll ever hope to achieve.
Three weeks ago, I went to Blackhawk Farms for the vintage racing, and saw a '67 Barracuda, a Cobra, an MGC-GT, a Mini Cooper S and a Formula Vee, all sharing the same track in the same race. It's a lot of fun.
But that's all it ever will be.
If you can make it happen, I'll applaud your effort, but right now, I'm just stuck asking "why"?
Respectfully yours,
Chris
-
Chris, I actually think it would be very easy to define, length, width, wheelbase, tread width, tire diameter, etc. just read the definition for the VOT class, it's all laid out pretty easy, and there way more tanks currently running than there are VOT cars, so the answer to your question of "why" is simple, the interest is there, and in high demand.
-
Okay, Bobby – let’s have an argument. :-D
In VOT, you’re dealing with repurposed vintage racing cars. The definitions provided for the class are analogous to the production based restrictions of coupe and roadster bodies. The defining elements are “tapered tail and cowl”, and a general description of the car’s former occupation.
But lakesters are defined only as being open wheel special construction cars, and the only restrictions are wheelbase with respect to engine size.
So now were trying to define a “vintage” lakester by length, width, wheelbase, tread width, tire diameter, etc?
On what basis would these parameters be set? Where would these numbers come from? What quantifiable characteristics would a “vintage” lakester have, and why and how would that separate it from a “modern” one?
Intuitively, instinctually, stylistically, perhaps even spiritually, I know where you’re trying to steer the definition, and in my mind’s eye, I see that perfect “vintage” style lakester. But they’re lakesters – open wheels that extend past the outer edge of the body on a displacement predicated minimum wheelbase. They come in infinite shapes and sizes, and the one in my mind’s eye would likely look quite different than the one in yours.
How does one come up with a consensus as to the definition of a codified vintage lakester? :?
Chris
-
Chris, It's "VINTAGE BELLYTANK" (VB), and Like I said before, I have 2 years to define the perimeters, so don't worry about it, that's my job and believe me, it won't be that hard. The "LAKESTER" class as we know it will continue to live on and thrive. So let's please end the argument.
"Tank" you.
-
"Vintage Bellytank....... :-P
Aaaah VB:
(http://www.annandalecellars.com.au/SiteFiles/annandalecellarscomau/images/large_7854_VB%20Stubbies.jpg)
Nah, Goggles won't allow that!! :cheers:
-
Graham, you should know better. :cheers:
There is no Grammy for "Best version of a Beatles/Elvis/Beach Boys etc" song.
Tanks are special construction, vintage body is easy.....vintage b'tank?
"No science is better than bad science".
I said that.
Over and out.
-
Good luck Bobby. I like your new approach... alot. Hopefully we'll have our belly tank done by then!
:cheers:
-
Like I said in my post on Nov1- Think about USFRA and their "130 Club"
-
While we're at it, can we PLEASE go back to splash oiling and babbitt bearings too?! :-D
-
Get a plymouth. They had thin shell inserts and full pressure.
-
:-D
-
Happy birthday, Pedro. :-D :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:
Doug
-
Thanks guys! I'm not getting older, I'm just getting faster...
:cheers:
-
Happy Bday Pedro!
-
Thanks. Got the best present ever last night. :cheers:
-
I guess you guys know that the board let the wording stand as written in the 2012 book.
-
:-D
-
Yup, the wording has stayed the same and so has the rule: no computers. Why the board didn't want to add in two words to help make the rule more clear I don't know but I do know that the response back from polled vintage engine competitors was 2-to-1 in favor of the new wording. I'll try to push this through again next year but in the mean time the rule is going to be enforced as written: no computers.
-
Yup, the wording has stayed the same and so has the rule: no computers. ... in the mean time the rule is going to be enforced as written: no computers.
I'm confused (what's new?)
Quoting from Mike Stewart's email survey of 11/14/12:
"A "No" vote will indicate that you are not in favor of the wording change and wish to allow the use of computerized, programmable ignition systems in Vintage Body with a Vintage Engine Classes. Allowing these types of advanced, computer controlled ignition systems to be used could give competitors the ability to program, control and correct ignition timing for conditions such as knock/detonation, boost pressure, gear position, and wheel slip or engine acceleration rate."
What am I missing?
Mike
-
Don't worry Mike... As you may be aware - If I go down, I will go down fighting for what's right. :cheers:
-
Wow... What a fun conversation.... :cheers:
-
Wow... What a fun conversation.... :cheers:
Isn't it awesome!?
I did my research today and have it on good authority that the board's no vote means the rule remains, as it always did, that "ANY" ignition may be used...
...but I'm pretty sure it'll come back up again next August in impound. :-D
Happy Thanksgiving!
-
Yup, the wording has stayed the same and so has the rule: no computers. ... in the mean time the rule is going to be enforced as written: no computers.
I'm confused (what's new?)
Quoting from Mike Stewart's email survey of 11/14/12:
"A "No" vote will indicate that you are not in favor of the wording change and wish to allow the use of computerized, programmable ignition systems in Vintage Body with a Vintage Engine Classes. Allowing these types of advanced, computer controlled ignition systems to be used could give competitors the ability to program, control and correct ignition timing for conditions such as knock/detonation, boost pressure, gear position, and wheel slip or engine acceleration rate."
What am I missing?
Mike
Maybe I can clarify. It was requested that the vintage engine community be polled as to whether or not they felt that computerized ignition systems should be allowed. 120 something emails were sent and not quite half replied. Of those that replied, 70% said that they supported the new wording and wish to not allow computerized ignition systems. All that was wanted was a general indication on how "we" as vintage engine competitors felt about computerized ignitions. You weren't actually voting on the rule... you were just being polled as to whether or not you think computerized ignitions should be allowed. Whatever your response was doesn't change the fact that the rule still says no computers.
Pete, maybe you can answer a simple question for me. You can pick ANY color you want BUT you can't pick blue. What color can't you pick?
-
Sorry Nathan, but I'm color blind... 8-)
Happy Thanksgiving!
-
Do you mean we can't have blue ignitions?
-
Steve,
Neither the Vintage Engine Committee nor it's spokesman have yet determined the acceptable color for ignitions.
I suspect this will be a lengthy process involving studying reams of data, looking through countless historic photos of what was used "in the good ol' days" (which might pose a problem since they're black an white), proposing a rule change, being voted down by the board... and then doing whatever they want because only they know the secret "intent" of the original rule, regardless of how it's written.
Regardless, I will refer to the board's decision as the "official" ruling of the SCTA, and continue to use my red one.
This is way too much fun...
:cheers:
-
Only my wires are blue. I hope that's ok to drive around and pick up the trash! HAPPY THANKSGIVING!