Landracing Forum
Bonneville Salt Flats Discussion => SCTA Rule Questions => Topic started by: lsrjunkie on December 09, 2012, 10:35:22 AM
-
The rule book states that for an engine to be used in XO class it must be a inline, flathead inline, or flathead V8 or V12 not built by ford or mercury. Easy enough. The question I have is about the part where it says, "1959 or earlier design." The way I read this is, if the engine was designed in 1959 or earlier then the actual manufacture date of the engine does not matter. Am I right in thinking this, or must it be built before '59 as well?
-
I would think that it means that the first engine of that design would have had to have been built in '59 or earlier, but that any engine from the subsequent production run, regardless of actual year of manufacture, could be used. In other words, if you wanted to use an engine that was introduced to the marketplace in 1953, but that continued to be built until 1969, you could use an engine with an actual manufacturing year of, say, 1965 and still be within the rules. But if the engine design was on paper somewhere before '59 but not introduced to the public until, say, 1961, you couldn't use it. But I'm just guessing, and we know how dangerous guessing can be.... :-)
-
The engine architecture needs to be 59 and earlier. A good example is the 235/261 Chevy. It was produced before and after 59, so it is legal. The later 230/250/292 replacements were designed AFTER 59 and are not legal.
-
You don't get a "Bye" on an engine that was on the drawing boards in 1959 but offered for sale only in '60 or later. It needs to be an engine in common use prior to 1960.
-
I would think that it means that the first engine of that design would have had to have been built in '59 or earlier, but that any engine from the subsequent production run, regardless of actual year of manufacture, could be used. In other words, if you wanted to use an engine that was introduced to the marketplace in 1953, but that continued to be built until 1969, you could use an engine with an actual manufacturing year of, say, 1965 and still be within the rules. But if the engine design was on paper somewhere before '59 but not introduced to the public until, say, 1961, you couldn't use it. But I'm just guessing, and we know how dangerous guessing can be.... :-)
Though the design is the same, the French flat head Ford blocks aren't legal in vintage. Tony
-
The cut-off date is intended to separate the semi-modern L6 OHV engines like the 1960 intros (Ford 144/170/200/250, slant 6 170/198/225) from the more primitive OHV engines (216/235/261 stovebolt, Ford 223, GMC, and Rambler (pre-AMC) 190).
-
The cut-off date is intended to separate the semi-modern L6 OHV engines like the 1960 intros (Ford 144/170/200/250, slant 6 170/198/225) from the more primitive OHV engines (216/235/261 stovebolt, Ford 223, GMC, and Rambler (pre-AMC) 190).
Actually, it appears the Ford Thriftpower 6 (144/170/200/250) and Mopar Slant 6 (170/198/225) would qualify as vintage engines. The rule book states "1959 or earlier design", and makes no mention of the model year of the vehicles in which they were introduced. The 1960 Ford Falcon debuted on October 8, 1959, and the Plymouth Valiant on October 26, 1959. Since the engines in question actually went on sale in 1959, they obviously had to be "1959 or earlier design".
-
Tooooooo many people trying to be lawyers!!!!!!!
Pete
-
Trying to be lawyers, yeah. But "1959 or earlier design" does not say "1959 or earlier production" or "1959 or earlier model year". Makes all the difference and would definitely end the debate. :-)
-
The cut-off date is intended to separate the semi-modern L6 OHV engines like the 1960 intros (Ford 144/170/200/250, slant 6 170/198/225) from the more primitive OHV engines (216/235/261 stovebolt, Ford 223, GMC, and Rambler (pre-AMC) 190).
Actually, it appears the Ford Thriftpower 6 (144/170/200/250) and Mopar Slant 6 (170/198/225) would qualify as vintage engines. The rule book states "1959 or earlier design", and makes no mention of the model year of the vehicles in which they were introduced. The 1960 Ford Falcon debuted on October 8, 1959, and the Plymouth Valiant on October 26, 1959. Since the engines in question actually went on sale in 1959, they obviously had to be "1959 or earlier design".
It mat appear that way to you. But I would not try to show up in impound with one of those engines. The class has been run for years and the cut off is well known and understood.
-
Both engines were introduced as new for the 1960 models. Both the Falcon and Valiant were completely new platforms.
The original drawing was by DaVinci using a goose quill and a pot of walnut juice, but it still goes by what year is the 1st car to use it.
-
Quite right: "trying to be lawyers" is actually nothing like a competent attorney. Weaseling around the language to make it say what you want instead of the original author's intent crashes in the upper Courts all the time.
BTW: that's the prism through which SCOTUS analyzes appeals: "what was the intent of the legislature?" takes precedence over any ambiguous language.
-
I don't disagree with you there. I do run a slant 6 motor in F engine class, but I still think the wording should match how it's applied and interpreted. Change just one word, from "design" to "production", and it's done. No more debate. :-)
-
I agree completely. Traditionally rules in all types of racing have always been up to interpretation. But there are more times than not when reading between the lines has not worked out for the reader. That is exactly what I am trying to avoid by asking the people that have already been through this.
-
The easiest way is to get an interpretation from the person in charge of the class in which you intend to compete and save the answer to enter in your log book so you don't have problems in tech or impound. Having a whole bunch of opinions is going to be worth nothing when you come up against event officials.
Pete
-
Clarity of language is always a praiseworthy goal, but the existing rules have a large inertia factor: why change something that all present competitors understand?
Not to be rude, but the purpose of a rule is so that no one's opinion matters, and you don't need to ask.
-
Tooooooo many people reading shit into the rules!!!!!!!
Pete
Fixed it for you PJ
-
:-D
Pete
-
And it's the "clarity of language" that got me to asking questions. In my mind if an engine was designed in 1959 but not available until '61 or '62 it would be ok. Based solely on how the rule for that class reads. Better to know now, as opposed to sitting in tech and finding out the hard way.
-
Nobody's trying to be a lawyer on this, but rather to understand what the rule really means.
Perhaps they intended to exclude engines that were introduced in 1960 or later model cars, and perhaps that's the way it's been interpreted in the past. However, that's not what the rule actually says.
If they want the rule to mean something other than what it says, then they should change the rule so that it actually says what they mean. Period. Otherwise somebody's going to interpret it based on what it actually says.
I'll add this one to my list of things to submit for clarification.
-
"XO class consists of inline overhead valve (OHV), inline flathead and flathead V8 (except Ford & Mercury) and V-12 passenger car and pickup truck(or the same engine design family, 4.N) engines, 1959 or earlier design, up to 325 original cid. In the spirit of the class, XO engines shall typically be those run at the Southern California Dry Lakes in the 1940s and early 1950s. Examples include Chevrolet, GMC, Hudson, Packard, Buick, Lincoln and Cadillac. Foreign engines are NOT included."
You have to read the complete rule, not just what you want. I fail to understand where, in bold print, it mentions an engine design which competed as new in a '60s car is legal.
DW
-
Time has shown that reading is easier than comprehending. About four years ago a guy pre-entered a XO/Street Roadster with a 331" Chrysler. I gave him a call. Let alone it was a bit oversized, but I questioned if it was, indeed, an inline (say Imperial?). Nope. It was a hemi. Had the car done and showed up and competed as a C and I think he's been back every year, allbeit with later Mopar engines.
-
But these threads DO make for some fun entertainment! :-D
-
They sure do! Everyone's interpretation of how things are said or worded seems to be different. Wether it's about racing rules, or what your wife or girlfriend asked you to do! :-D
-
"XO class consists of inline overhead valve (OHV), inline flathead and flathead V8 (except Ford & Mercury) and V-12 passenger car and pickup truck(or the same engine design family, 4.N) engines, 1959 or earlier design, up to 325 original cid. In the spirit of the class, XO engines shall typically be those run at the Southern California Dry Lakes in the 1940s and early 1950s. Examples include Chevrolet, GMC, Hudson, Packard, Buick, Lincoln and Cadillac. Foreign engines are NOT included."
You have to read the complete rule, not just what you want. I fail to understand where, in bold print, it mentions an engine design which competed as new in a '60s car is legal.
You're obviously correct, but the problem is that the rule contradicts itself. Does one part of the rule take precedence over the other? If so, which one? If it was really intended to limit vintage engines to 1940's and early 1950's types, that's fine, but then why doesn't it just say "1955 or earlier design", instead of "1959"? How are the uninitiated, who are reading the rule book for the first time, supposed to know where the line is really being drawn? If this rule, and some other confusing ones, were re-written, then the problems could be eliminated. But of course that would deprive us of the fun of arguing about it here.
The point is that the rule is currently written leaves room for misinterpretations.
-
The point is that the rule is currently written leaves room for misinterpretations.
Only if you want it to!
Pete
-
OK, sorry, but I gotta chime back in here. Dan, thanks for pointing out the phrase that was added to the 2012 rulebook. That is a helpful addition and should make a new entrant take pause before showing up with a slant 6 to run XO. But, back to lawyer-speak, saying "XO engines shall typically be..." The word "typical" to me leaves wiggle room for someone trying to read something else into the rule; an expensive mistake if not researched further. It means there could be something else besides what was run in the 1940's and 1950's.
Notice that all the posts here arguing against changing that one word "design" have 4 or 5 stars by their name. The ones suggesting more clarity are the newer members trying to get some clarity. Yes, the senior members/old timers know exactly what the intent and application of the rule is. But for a newcomer wanting to build one of those Ford or Mopar inbetweeners, they're likely to be going around in circles for a while before they figure out what's what.
Again, just changing that one word "design" to "production" or "model year" would end all this chatter. :-)
-
Crying towel's are available in the impound (Warnerville)
-
At least...Horns don't have to be capable of starting engines anymore :evil: :cheers:
JL222
-
I think it's important to note that comprehension of the rule as it appears today is not a function of IQ, engineering competence or general literacy. This is not a "you can't fix stupid" problem at all.
People who have already dealt with the rules cannot proofread what is in essence their own work - I certainly can't. I still find poor spelling, grammar, awkward language etc. in my own work that I've already read at least 100 times.
Tell the truth: don't we all wince when someone "discovers" that early OHV V8 engines should be legal in XO, and it has to be explained at length? Wouldn't that be easier if the last XO sentence said: "Specifically prohibited are all OHV V8 engines regardless of construction date, and OHV L6 engines first manufactured for the 1960 model year and later" (note the comma)?
However: I have an advantage - I was chained to a desk in the Supreme Court of NY (Civil Branch) for decades, and just to relieve the tedium I began to pick up patterns of how "obvious" language meant luxury vs. bankruptcy.
The placement of commas, semi-colons etc. are life and death, and there are places in the existing rules where the exact use of punctuation both helps first-time comprehension, and reinforces any protest after the fact.
-
Panic, I'm wondering how anyone can read the rule, and 'discover' that an early OHV v8 should be legal in XO? :?
-
This is crazy!! I didn't mean to start such an uproar! Just didn't want to show up with the wrong engine and only be allowed to run for, "time only." I hope there is no hard feelings. Just a newbie trying to figure some stuff out.
-
"How are the uninitiated, who are reading the rule book for the first time, supposed to know where the line is really being drawn?"
When confused or just seeking info about your class Section 16 of the rulebook can be your friend.
DW
-
Is there something wrong with just having the rules actually say what they're supposed to mean?
-
I'm in complete agreement with you. The SCTA should hire grammarticians and lawyers and proofreaders and forecasters to review their rules which have worked in this amateur organization for years. They've got to get professional. So what if they run the largest land speed event on the planet with basically only one paid employee. This is the 20th, no 21st, Century. Let's all twitter on this, or whatever that is. This is just not right. By the way, as I'm sure you're a member, you can lead the way.
-
The dryness could be cut with a knife :cheers:
-
This is crazy!! I didn't mean to start such an uproar! Just didn't want to show up with the wrong engine and only be allowed to run for, "time only." I hope there is no hard feelings. Just a newbie trying to figure some stuff out.
You will find on page 27 of the rulebook that you need to have a skin thicker than 0.120" to use the LSR website.
:-D
Relax, this is the norm. If somebody gets their panties twisted, it's up to them to unravel them.
-
As an XO guy since 1974 if find this hilarious...........................JD
-
And don't forget: "The Spirit of the Rule". What? You haven't heard about that yet? You will.
Doug :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:
Just let it roll off and keep going. This is as much fun as you will have in your lifetime.
-
No, never mind.
-
And it's the "clarity of language" that got me to asking questions. In my mind if an engine was designed in 1959 but not available until '61 or '62 it would be ok. Based solely on how the rule for that class reads. Better to know now, as opposed to sitting in tech and finding out the hard way.
My way of thinking about that would be to bring written proof from the manufacturer that your 1961 engine was fully designed in 1959 and I can't see there being a problem. That your neighbor behind you but two houses over said your 1961 engine was designed in 1959 is not definitive proof. The problem with the rules is not the rules. Its people reading into them what they want to see.
-
The problem with the rules is not the rules. Its people reading into them what they want to see.
I agree completely. How can "1959 or earlier model year" be read into something that clearly states "1959 or earlier design"?
A big part of any type of racing has always been rules interpretation. Rules need to evolve as racers exploit the loopholes in them.
Many years ago, I inspected an SCCA Trans Am Sunoco Camaro. The rules at the time limited the fuel tank to 10 gallons. Ok, so Penske just installed a gigantic filler neck that held a couple of extra gallons. They found a way around the rules, and took advantage of it. The rule at the time didn't cover it, but it sure did the next year.
As someone said before, ask the Salt Cat guys. There was nothing in the XO rules prohibiting modified stock cylinder heads at the time they modified theirs. They found a loophole and took advantage of it. I'm sure they had a lot time, and perhaps a lot of money invested in their efforts, only to lose the records they had set (at least in XO).
So, now we're looking at another hole in the rules. It would be easy enough to fix so that nobody else wastes time and/or money on it. Or, would it be better to leave it as is so that only the insiders know what it really means?
-
I don't know. In '77 after SpeedWeek I decided I wanted to have an XX/Alt. The engine rules seemed pretty clear to me at the time. Later they split off the Fords. What has become more difficult since then?
-
This is crazy!! I didn't mean to start such an uproar! Just didn't want to show up with the wrong engine and only be allowed to run for, "time only." I hope there is no hard feelings. Just a newbie trying to figure some stuff out.
You will find on page 27 of the rulebook that you need to have a skin thicker than 0.120" to use the LSR website.
:-D
Relax, this is the norm. If somebody gets their panties twisted, it's up to them to unravel them.
OH MAN!! More rules! This is crazy!! I don't know if this is all it was cracked up to be!! :-D
-
I fall back to one of my old sayings here:
Same rules, more words.
DW
-
trimmers if you don't like how the rule was written; submit a rule change to the scta board
-
I don't necessarily want to change the rule, as I can't tell what it was really intended to mean. I'd just like to see its inherent contradictions clarified. Although I do have a vehicle with one of the engines in question (a 1963 Ranchero with 170 Thriftpower 6), I doubt if I'd ever want to run it in competition. I've got a couple of other cars for that.
Anyway, I've already got a clarification request drafted to submit on this issue (plus one on another), but it's a bit early. I'll probably wait until right after Speedweek, so as to beat the Sept 1 submission deadline.
-
After reading four pages, it's readily apparent what the rule was made for. It was to exclude the later-model engines, GM and Ford, that were introduced in 1960. (Yes, yes -- as 1960 models! Jeremy Schmidt did the initial drawings for GM for the 230 in 1953, coincidentally the last year of the Flathead Ford, unless you count France, and the fact he was in Germany and did it in metric, which means it could be excluded in Gas Coupe unless it had a flathead motorcycle engine which if early enough (say before 9 A.M.) get a 33-1/3% (or 25%?) discount on displacement. Early entries may allow that to move to 42%, and you can then move up in class because no one remembers how to take one apart any more and measure it (Tuesday only).
-
Stan, I knew you could clarify everything. :? :? :? :cheers:
Pete
-
Stan! I love it! Everything has become so much clearer now! :-D
-
It's always been clear to me but I'm a friend of Stand's..........or I started reading about the SCTA in about 1953..........or my first car in 1958 met the specs of XO eventho the class wasn't there yet............or I'm old............or I only read between the lines when it comes to roadster bodies.....................or :evil:
-
Stan,
Yeah but, what if I have a ..... oh never mind.
DW
-
Keep this up and we will have as many car classes as the two wheel bunch.
-
I want Vintage Hemi Classes, Chrysler, Dodge and Desoto, 1951 - 1958 production engine blocks and heads. :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:
Tom G.
-
New class already exists. American Gas Roadster, C engine break only. You can move the displacement of all your Hemis up or down to meet the displacement limit of 372.9cid.
I know you have a car in one of your storage containers. I drive by your house almost every day.
I knew it! The new class does have dozens of cars ready to run.
DW
-
Have they considered two courses at El Mirage?
(Maybe crossing?)
-
Have they considered two courses at El Mirage?
(Maybe crossing?)
Irish 2 course meal? A beer and a potato??
-
New class already exists. American Gas Roadster, C engine break only. You can move the displacement of all your Hemis up or down to meet the displacement limit of 372.9cid.
I know you have a car in one of your storage containers. I drive by your house almost every day.
I knew it! The new class does have dozens of cars ready to run.
DW
ROTFLMAO, no I am not interested in the American Gas Roadster class. My old STR's motor would have qualified for that class, it was a piece of junk and ran 163 in the STR at El Mirage, which is over the minimum set for the new roadster class.
Contrary to popular belief, I only own two LSR cars. The Modified Roadster, and the Temple car which would qualify for the American Gas Roadster Class, but I am not interested in running that class.
The money from the motors I have for sale on here are going towards getting the Modified Roadster making noise at El Mirage again.
Tom G.
-
Tom...I certainly hope so..........I may even come out a watch that, help if you needed it......Wait a minute I'd get my new truch dirty and we can't have that :cheers:....................................JD
-
Since I am into EARLY SBCs how about a class for 265's, No side mounts allowed, ONLY early ones with front mounts :-D :evil: Oh, and they would have to be produced in July of 1954. Simple enough?
-
DW I count 19 pages of records for cars and 14 for motorcycles!! :roll: Way too much time on my hands this morning. :cheers:
-
Tom...I certainly hope so..........I may even come out a watch that, help if you needed it......Wait a minute I'd get my new truch dirty and we can't have that :cheers:....................................JD
JD,
Thanks. That is the plan. Just have to wait until the motors sell.
Tom G.
Since I am into EARLY SBCs how about a class for 265's, No side mounts allowed, ONLY early ones with front mounts :-D :evil: Oh, and they would have to be produced in July of 1954. Simple enough?
Tman,
I have a 265 chevy, but it has two front mounts so do I still qualify for the class? :lol: :-) :evil: It has front motor mounts along with a front mount 4-71, has a destroked crank though. It was Clyde Sturdy's old motor they used to run in Glenn Deeds Modified Sports Car back in the mid to late 60's.
Disclaimer: I am just having some fun with Tman and his post.
Tom G.
-
Tom...I certainly hope so..........I may even come out a watch that, help if you needed it......Wait a minute I'd get my new truch dirty and we can't have that :cheers:....................................JD
JD,
Thanks. That is the plan. Just have to wait until the motors sell.
Tom G.
Since I am into EARLY SBCs how about a class for 265's, No side mounts allowed, ONLY early ones with front mounts :-D :evil: Oh, and they would have to be produced in July of 1954. Simple enough?
Tman,
I have a 265 chevy, but it has two front mounts so do I still qualify for the class? :lol: :-) :evil: It has front motor mounts along with a front mount 4-71, has a destroked crank though. It was Clyde Sturdy's old motor they used to run in Glenn Deeds Modified Sports Car back in the mid to late 60's.
Disclaimer: I am just having some fun with Tman and his post.
Tom G.
Yes, but what month was the block cast!?!?!?!?! :-D
-
Tman, I would love that class! But would it be blown or fuel or both? That ought to make it really fun!
And since we're on that track, how about a gen III inline class so I can run the 292 I already started to build!! :evil: :-D
-
There're already classes for all of them! How big are they?
-
I have a Cox .049 that I would like to run. You can time me with a calender!
-
Trent,
Appartently we can do that now. To simplfy the class what color is your car?
DW
-
:-D :-D :-D :cheers: :cheers:
Pete
-
Does it have a prop assist. :evil:
-
Yes, but the prop is solar powered.
Doug :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:
-
Already been done -- the .049 (or whatever it was). Rick Yacoucci ran the engine on a mini-crotch rocket a bunch of years ago at Bub's -- going for most MPH/cubic inch, I think it was. I remember hearing it scream past -- many, many thousand rpm and very few mph. But remember -- that was Bub's where if you can think it -- it's true. Ask Rick for details.
-
Already been done -- the .049 (or whatever it was). Rick Yacoucci ran the engine on a mini-crotch rocket a bunch of years ago at Bub's -- going for most MPH/cubic inch, I think it was. I remember hearing it scream past -- many, many thousand rpm and very few mph. But remember -- that was Bub's where if you can think it -- it's true. Ask Rick for details.
I believe that was a regular pitbike Slim. An 049 has a piston the size of a pencil eraser :-o
-
No, that bike wasn't a pit bike. It was way too small - Rick could barely hang on. And the engine did have the sound of an airplane model engine. Maybe there was a helper engine to get the bike up to speed, but I am pretty sure that it was just the tiny engine moving it. I guess I could ask Rick for a report.
-
No, that bike wasn't a pit bike. It was way too small - Rick could barely hang on. And the engine did have the sound of an airplane model engine. Maybe there was a helper engine to get the bike up to speed, but I am pretty sure that it was just the tiny engine moving it. I guess I could ask Rick for a report.
Yes, you are right, it was smaller, a pocketbike? I forget but the tale is here on the board somewhere.............
-
Sounds like it must have had one hellacious gear reduction box. :cheers:
-
You shudda seen the sprockets on the 1:48 chain drive.
-
Maybe he had one of these transmissions?
(http://imageshack.us/a/img2/3929/img370.jpg)
-
Maybe he had one of these transmissions?
(http://imageshack.us/a/img2/3929/img370.jpg)
Looks like over 10 speeds, What the heck is that? :-o
-
Roadster guy guesses 50cc GP bike.
-
Roadster guy good. Its a 50cc twin cylinder 14 speed Suzuki from 1967. I wonder if you could get it into 14th before you got to the lights?
-
You could if it's in a streamliner -- 5 miles.
-
Could you get a 50 over 175 to qualify for the long course? 50cc, 16,000 rpm, 500 rpm powerband. Rider needs to be able to tap dance like Fred Astaire to keep it in the powerband,
-
AAAAHHH grasshopper, streamliners dont have to qualify for the long course. I was going to guess Kriedler
-
1.F...All vehicles, except Streamliners, shall exceed 175 MPH in the first timed quarter-mile of the "short" course before competing on the "long" course.
Mike
-
Us bottom feeders usually skip over those rules when reading the rule book.
-
I see 14 sets, all right, and the output -- but where's the power get INTO the gearset? It looks like the crank drives a jackshaft, but what goes from there to the input of the trans? What am I missing? It can't be my eyes...can it?
-
It looks like the primary and the clutch go on the gear and the stub sticking out at the top
-
I have to admit I'm not sure and was never privvy to such information. But obviously it worked.
(http://imageshack.us/a/img509/9397/img058lj6.jpg)