Landracing Forum
Bonneville Salt Flats Discussion => Bonneville General Chat => Topic started by: Ken Walkey on November 12, 2004, 09:16:00 PM
-
Re: Traction Control. We understand FORD has TC on all the new cars, so average J.Q. Public can have better control of their vehicles on ice, snow, etc. It cost a few $s,but is considered a SAFTY FACTOR. Our antiquated board of directors,of SCTA/BNI are still living in 1947,and have voted to outlaw TC on any compitition vehicle, with a three year suspension if caught using it,even on special construction vehicles such as Streamliners and Lakesters. The future of land speed racing is very much in trouble if we continue to take one steep forward, and two back. This type of thinking cannot continue. We are not dealing with 150hp Model A's, we're dealing with 1500hp two liter 4-bangers, and everything else above that. We're not trying to go 200mph, some members are looking at 350 to 550mph. Come on board members, get real. Streamliners and Lakesters are the ultimate, UNLIMITED way of doing your thing in LSR, lets keep it that way.
-
Ken, I agree, not only do they have traction control as of today-- GM and ford anounced they will make ESC (Electriconic Staiblity Control) standard on all fullsize SUVs.
Now I know the roadster guys will need to vote against this as it would eliminate the spins...lol
-
Ken, I agree also.
I can't for the life of me understand the illogical terror that traction control strikes in the heart of sanctioning bodies. I guess we will have to wait for someone to die from an exploded tire that shredded at 300 mph, then we'll "get right on it".
-
Another thought. I can understand why it would be illegal in the vintage classes. But if we make it illegal in all the classes then the whole event becomes a "vintage class". It's 2004. isn't it?
In the old days, racers didn't have seat belts, and died when the car tossed them out. Now SCTA has stringent belt rules and have increased safety greatly.
In the old days, racers didn't have roll cages, and died when the car rolled over on them. Now SCTA has stringent cage rules and have increased safety greatly.
In the old days, racers didn't have firesuits, and died when they were trapped in a burning car. Now SCTA has stringent firesuit & extinguisher rules and have increased safety greatly.
Today, traction control is cheap and plentiful, in stark contrast to LSR tires. We routinely have 700-1,000 HP cars spinning cracked, 30 year old tires at over 300 MPH. Rolling the dice. Each day there is another irreplacable tire added to the "destroyed by wheelspin" trash heap. Each run risks one of your friends lives. Literally.
The only action taken by SCTA to this OBVIOUS safety problem is to place the harshest potential penalty as a punnishment on anybody who would dare to make their car safer.
I was told (secondhand) that the traction control committe formed by the SCTA board recommended this past Friday that it be legalized, then the SCTA board promptly voted to make it illegal in all classes. Is that true? why?
I have a leather football helmet from the old days. Guess I'll dust that off cuz I'm going vintage racin' Woot!
<small>[ November 14, 2004, 02:32 AM: Message edited by: John Romero ]</small>
-
I think traction control should be legalized, but definitely not mandatory. Part of the thrill of high speed racing is the satisfaction you get from overcoming extreme conditions. Excess horsepower, excess speed, excess technology. I think that is why Nascar is so successful. Grass roots racing. Not simply technology calling all the shots...
-
I dont think anybody would ask that it be made mandatory. Just allow people who want to use it the right to use it.
-
Hey I am big on innovation, if it is out there let them use it, if they think they want it. Dont know how it could be called a safety problem and not allow it. So our unlimited designes are pretty limited when they cannot use today's technology in a vehicle that is sapposed to be a purpose built machine for speed.
Jon
-
I was asked my thoughts at the WF's regarding TC. I am in favor of it and have the system available on my new 'liner although I have not used it as yet. I firmly belive it is a safety system and extremely disapointed that the BOD voted to disallow it. I wish we had known this issue was being considered, some of us would likely have argued the case in favor. I suggest we collectively consider initating some action to cause reconsideration.
-
John Romero- yes, the rules committe did vote 14 to 1, then the board got together and over ruled it.(it's called stabed in the back)
Roger- let's go!,I only hope we can knock some sence into this board before someone gets hurt, like maybe a highboy with 1500hp.
John-very well put, yes, it is 2004, not 1949.
-
Don't they relize that current aftermarket fuel injection ecu's have this built in allready ie. Motec
-
Roger I'm with you we can't let this go away, We need to stay on them till they give in!!!!
-
As I understand the rule that was put forward... it was only for special construction and left out the rest of us...
We are looking at several class's of cars that will be hitting 300mph soon...
When I first started racing just 6 yrs ago there were 18 people in the 300mph club... today there are 60.... so in the last 10% of the time racing on the salt we've increased the number of people setting records over 300 by 200% +....
Point being it's time to re-evaluate our collective thinking... things aren't the same as they were just a few short years ago...
What I do know about our board is that they will listen if we keep complaining.... they might not always vote in our favor... but to their credit they will listen... after that you have to control your efforts by voting for the right people to be on the board. Look closely at who is on the board and the decisions they make... Then in the future lobby to vote out those that are ignorant to progress.
-
after that you have to control your efforts by voting for the right people to be on the board. Look closely at who is on the board and the decisions they make... Then in the future lobby to vote out those that are ignorant to progress.
That is a noble thought. Take a look at your ballot in recent years. All offices have people running unopposed. You vote for 5 of 13 positions the balance are appointed by the sitting board.
Bottom line - the very same people fill these posts year after year. Not a single person will step up to voluteer to fill the positions and bring fresh thoughts to the table. Seems like it is easier to vent on a message board than take the lead and come forward.
DW
-
An unenforciable rule is more politics than reality.
I actually never considered it as a safety measure, however, those points are valid. When I first saw the ruling and penalty, my feeling was somebody got beat.
Ken W. and J Beckett read your PM's.
-
I was at the rules committee meeting and I voted for traction control, but I have now changed my mind and agree with the board on their decision. I personally do not feel it is a safety matter.(when someone wants something to pass real bad it is always classified as a safety issue)
If you have bought or built a car that you cannot drive by the seat of your pants and know when the wheels are spinning or it is comming around on you, then that is your problem and I suggest you fix it.(We are hot rodders aren't we)
Why don't we just eliminate the driver(for safetys sake of course)and put a gps and computor in their place.
SCTA grew up on dry lake beds. Men and Woman had to know how to drive a car, because traction was never a givin. Now, you want to give the throttle pedal over to a computer instead of a human. Where have we gone wrong. OH I am sorry this is in the name of safety isn't it.
This issue was submitted by a person who is 73 years old. SCTA is one of the few organizations where a 73 year old person can compete. Maybe instead of traction control SCTA should be looking into putting an age limit on driving streamliners, and making everyone pass a physical in order to drive. You don't see anyone driving a winston cup car over 50, and why is that? They just don't have the reflexs and skills they had when they were younger.
Finally, a guy in our club has traction control on his Audi. At World finals he ran 150mph without it. With it he ran 178mph. A net gain of 28mph with the aid of a computor driving with him. It use to be lets build the best car, then find the best driver to drive it. Now it is lets build the best car let the computor drive it and let the person who spent a couple of hundred thousand dollars go for a ride even if they don't have any driving skills. If SCTA lets this pass they have just opened up a pandoras box. Cars will be going much faster than they are now, and the same people will be complaining about tires and safety.
Regards,
Tom Gerardi
-
Dan- As an ex-board member(before your time)I found it was best to discuss an item with those it involved. Trying to educate those who are dictating policy, who donot seem to fully understand, what traction control is all about. I really have nothing personal against the board,in fact, believe it or not, I enjoy being around the hypocrits who vote in a rules committe to allow TC, and the sheep are told how to vote at the following board meeting. There fun to watch. I only hope it does not have an accident type ending. Like it was said,"-the technology is out there, lets use it", or we can dig out our "leather helmets and go vintage racing". You really want me back on the board Dan ? I don't think so
-
Tom G, for a used parts salesman, and one who has never driven a race car very fast, you seem to be quite an expert. CU at the LB swap meet.
-
Originally posted by desotoman:
...If you have bought or built a car that you cannot drive by the seat of your pants and know when the wheels are spinning or it is comming around on you, then that is your problem and I suggest you fix it.(We are hot rodders aren't we)...
I agree. Lets fix it. And how do you fix uncontrolled wheelspin...... with traction control.
The funny thing about TC arguments are the wildly different reasons why it's No Good.
1. It slows you down so it's "No Good"
2. It makes you go so much faster that it is itself "unsafe"
3. It costs a fortune
4. In the good old days real men drove the cars
5. etc etc etc...
and to those I answer,
1. Totally false.
2. I hit terminal velocity without wheelspin. Its the acceleration that is unsafe!
3. I have TC that came FOR FREE as part of my $2,000 Engine Management System. (yes, it's disabled)
4. And today, real men drive Vintage. But I am a girley man and want TC for my 450 HP FWD Civic!
But my most important reason for wanting traction control to be legal is this:
why not?
If you dont want to run it, don't. If you don't want to race against it and want to race the way it "used to be" then race the vintage or classic classes. But, if you want to run a Modern Production or Modified Coupe then why attempt to disallow the very things that make it modern?
Whats the difference between TC & Electronic Fuel Injection and on board computers? I thought that's WHY the Classic classes were created, so those who love the Old Iron to have a safe place to keep the traditions alive.
BUT, dont ignore the fact that it is 2004 and that modern day hot rodders use traction control.
So I guess that the real question is: Does SCTA run events for hot rodders in 2004 or does SCTA sanction vintage events. Are we still hot rodders or do we want SCTA to protect us from them?
Also, sounds like that AUDI guy kicked ass and found 28MPH. In my book, he's a Hot Rodder and I want to be just like him. Who on this board doesn't want to go 28 MPH faster? And before you say "it was too easy" I have 2 words: Nitrous Oxide. But thats not illegal.
Just my $0.02 worth
Regards,
John Romero
(btw, the above is not a rant, I just feel very strongly that technology is our friend and not an enemy, dont run from it, Harness it and go faster than you've ever gone before. That's Hot Rodding!)
<small>[ November 15, 2004, 05:25 PM: Message edited by: John Romero ]</small>
-
I dont cosider myself a hot rodder, I consider myself a speed freak.... So if im not a hot rodder can I run it???
Jonathan
-
Speed freaks are the unwashed stepchildren of Hot Rodders so technically, yes, you could run it. But we'll keep an eye on you just to be sure.
-
Jon- Not at this time, per present board decission. With common sense and acceptance of presant day technology to go faster,and safer, we may have a chance. Thats what it's all about, isn't it ?
-
Hey John! I have 2 Honda Civics a '00 and a '03 and neither one has traction control I'm aware of? (EX and HX) Otherwise the right front tire would not have broke loose leaving the resturaunt this morning after going through a little gutter water.
I know yours is not an SI. How about a little help here??? J.D.
-
Those of you who do not consider traction control to be a safety issue need to rethink your conclusion.
If I shred a rear tire and it takes out the wing on the lakester at 350+ MPH, that car is going to crash - no two ways about it!
I've driven a number of fast cars at Bonneville over the past 30 years, and in my experience you cannot always tell when you are spinning the tires. I've seen numerous cars stop at the big end with damaged drive tires and some of the drivers had no idea they had spun enough to do any damage. If you have not seen or of heard this, you haven't paid attention to the tires on many long, skinny, really fast cars after a run.
The rules for Special Construction cars used to encourage "unlimited innovation". The idea was to impose rules only to the extent necessary to make the cars as safe as possible. Whatever happened to this simple, sensible and straightforward kind of rule making?
In the case of this traction control issue, SCTA is imposing a rule that makes the cars less safe. Who is pushing this kind of backwards thinking?
As the man said, just my $.02.
-
Originally posted by jimmy six:
Hey John! I have 2 Honda Civics a '00 and a '03 and neither one has traction control I'm aware of? (EX and HX) Otherwise the right front tire would not have broke loose leaving the resturaunt this morning after going through a little gutter water.
I know yours is not an SI. How about a little help here??? J.D.
J.D.
So you're one of those damn kids burning out in front of my house! Better watch out or you might get an exibition of speed ticket. You know how the cops watch you kids in your rice rockets!
But, you are correct, the "stock" ECU for my car (01 Civic Coupe LX) is not TC enabled, I had a one off JDM ECU flashed with it. I corrected my earlier post.
Thanks,
John
-
Ken Walkey, if you want to talk about me, send me a email off line. If you want to talk about traction control, then post your message here. By the way, for just a parts salesman as you put it, why did you ask me to crew for you for several years at Bonneville, or did you forget. Now I am glad I turned you down.
Regards,
Tom Gerardi
-
All of this discussion and nobody brings up the fact that you can have, and use, Traction Control in Production Classes, If so equipped from the Factory.....Hmmmmm I believe That Audi is running Production Supercharged WITH Traction Control, Legally...(at over 180 MPH at WF).
-
The "production" class is a higher technology class than the Unlimited Streamliner which, according to SCTA is "All out straightaway vehicles...innovation is unlimited" As I said before, are we hot rodders or vintage racers?. Lets just put it to rest. I propose the following to replace the existing classes:
Vintage Streamliner
Vintage Lakester
Vintage Electric Vehicle (can only run on tesla coils or extension cords, no batteries allowed!)
To replace our existing classes. Same rules (of course).
We also need to rename the production classes to "Unlimited Innovation-Production"
So we would have:
UI-Pro
UI-GT
UI-B/GT
UI-PS
UI-PP
UI-P/MP
Just kidding. sort of. well, no i'm not, i'm serious.
Regards,
John Romero
<small>[ November 15, 2004, 06:53 PM: Message edited by: John Romero ]</small>
-
[img width= height= alt= - ]http://www.tonerlady.com/images/Smiley/yelrotflmao.gif[/img]
Mike M.
#847 F/P/MP
SCTA-BNI/Gear Grinders
-
To all- This is all very good input, running about 26 to one in favor of TC. Lets keep the pressure going, maybe, just maybe the board will reconsider.
-
Ken are you sure you are from
California and over 30 yrs old????
us one drive wheel guys think tc might
be neat and keen too............
Joe :)
-
Originally posted by Mike Meierle:
All of this discussion and nobody brings up the fact that you can have, and use, Traction Control in Production Classes, If so equipped from the Factory.....Hmmmmm I believe That Audi is running Production Supercharged WITH Traction Control, Legally...(at over 180 MPH at WF).
Great all we now is a manufacture to produce a factory streamliner so we can have traction control.
Jon
-
Need John Rains to put together a new firebird with traction control in it. pushing the 300 mph range, 292 mph record with an older car. Face it people ALL new cars from 2001 and up have some type of traction control on the vehicles. Not only for high speeds, slippery surfaces etc but for slowing down. Hmmm guess they are just a bunch of young guys who dont know any better.
Jon
-
The more one stews over this subject. If you put a wheel speed sensor in front of the group, how many would know what it is? If none could name it then who is to say one isn't using traction control. How are you going to regulate it. There is traction control in todays computers running on the salt. Motec for example. I do not know exactly on it works in the motec. But I do know there are many different forms of traction control and how would SCTA even regulate it? If they dont know what to look for. There are several forms of it, use wheel speed, trans speed, driveshaft speeds, ground speed, rpm V wheel speed, etc etc the list can go on and on. I think we are in a electronics age where most couldnt find it anyway even if they were looking for it. So if you can't regulate it save the hassel and allow it.
Jonathan
-
Here is how one system works with traction control.
When drive wheel slip is noted while the brake is not applied, the EBCM will enter traction control mode.
First, the EBCM requests the PCM to reduce the amount of torque to the drive wheels via the requested torque signal circuit. The PCM reduces torque to the drive wheels by retarding spark timing and turning off fuel injectors. The PCM reports the amount torque delivered to the drive wheels via the delivered torque signal circuit.
If the engine torque reduction does not eliminate drive wheel slip, the EBCM will actively apply the drive wheel brakes. During traction control braking, hydraulic pressure in each drive wheel circuit is controlled to prevent the drive wheels from slipping. The master cylinder isolation valve closes in order to isolate the master cylinder from the rest of the hydraulic system. The prime valve then opens in order to allow the pump to accumulate brake fluid in order to build hydraulic pressure for braking.
Sounds like a good way to prevent wheel slip and saving tires to me and possible blowouts.
Jonathan
-
Are we allowed to use electronic stablility arms on vehicle for stablization?
If so this could be a way to do it.
The Vehicle Stability Enhancement System (VSES) includes an additional level of vehicle control to the EBCM. The VSES is activated by the EBCM calculating the desired yaw rate and comparing it to the actual yaw rate input. The desired yaw rate is calculated from measured steering wheel position, vehicle speed, and lateral acceleration. The difference between the desired yaw rate and actual yaw rate is the yaw rate error, which is a measurement of oversteer or understeer. If the yaw rate error becomes too large, the EBCM will attempt to correct the vehicle's yaw motion by applying differential braking to the left or right front wheel.
The amount of differential braking applied to the left or right front wheel is based on both the yaw rate error and side slip rate error. The side slip rate error is a function of the lateral acceleration minus the product of the yaw rate and vehicle speed. The yaw rate error and side slip rate error are combined to produce the total delta velocity error. When the delta velocity error becomes too large and the VSES system activates, the driver's steering inputs combined with the differential braking will attempt to bring the delta velocity error toward zero.
The EBCM also uses the input from the brake fluid pressure sensor for more accurate braking control during VSES.
The VSES activations generally occur during aggressive driving, in the turns or bumpy roads without much use of the accelerator pedal. When braking during VSES activation, the brake pedal will feel different than the ABS pedal pulsation. The brake pedal pulsates at a higher frequency during VSES activation.
Jonathan
-
Here is how Ford does it.
The traction control system controls wheelspin by modulating the engine torque by communicating to the Powertrain Control Module (PCM) and by applying, then releasing, the appropriate brake to restore traction when one or both drive wheels lose traction and begin to spin during acceleration.
Jonathan
-
Porsche,
ABS / TC 5.3 (4-channel system) system description
TC prevents spinning of the drive wheels when moving off and accelerating. Driving stability and traction are improved over the entire speed range.
Traction Control (TC) is ready for operation when ever the engine is started.
Driving-stability control:
If Traction Control (TC) detects that a certain speed difference between the wheels has been exceeded (wheel spin), engine power is automatically reduced
Jonathan
<small>[ November 15, 2004, 08:14 PM: Message edited by: JonAmo ]</small>
-
Sooo, at least they retired all the previous records set with traction control. NO????
I have some 97's for sale that should cure that pesky tire spin thing. I was going to give them away.
-
This T.C. controversy should never have existed since the rule book for years said "innovation is unlimited" in special construction vehicles. Then our dinosaur board decided to hinder safety progress by outlawing t.c. It is the only violation of rules that mets a 3yr. punishment. This same board criticized Earl Wooden after he crashed his Comp Coupe saying he spun his tires too hard, which caused a crash.
If a person was to build a twin engine streamliner with one engine in front and one behind the driver and a drive shaft connecting the two engines, it would be legal, but if you connected the engines electrically it would be considered t.c. If the board insists on outlawing t.c., then multi-engine streamliners should not be connected in the middle i.e. let the front engine drive only the front and rear drive on the rear.
-
Im saying Computers are more accurate in knowing when excessive wheel spin occurs over a driver in the car. The complexity of the computers allows even for yaw rates and steering wheel angle to help better control the vehicle. For cripes sake a 2001 Geo Metro probably teh cheapest vehicle ever made in the world had traction control even for all 3 cylinders, but maybe someone like Burklands or Marlo may enjoy that feature on who knows how much money invested can't utilize the same technology as a Geo metro.
If it is really about safety then it should be legal.
Jonathan
-
You know, I was not even going to get into the definition of traction control. How can you ban it without defining it?
The only reason I bring this up is that in a previous life I assisted in work on a definition of traction control for a major sanctioning body (CART). It took 2 years and many aborted attempts before it was concluded that it is near impossible to define specifically and virtually impossible to police.
In the end, CART gave up and legalized It. As did F1. If F1 cant police it who can? Hell, even NHRA is allowing it in the Summit Sport Compact Drag Racing series. NHRA!
No matter how you choose to define it, the letter of the rule can easily be circumvented, as was illustrated from the above posts by jon. And I could rattle off an additional 3-5 ways to do it.
Think about this, If SCTA suspected that you ran "Traction Control" and disallowed your record, and you protested, SCTA could not even define TC let alone prove that you used it.
There are definitions in the rule book but not one for traction control. You would think that the only thing that gets you the death penalty (3 yr ban for you and the horse you rode in on) would at least be defined!
Regards,
John Romero
-
Originally posted by JonAmo:
... technology as a Geo metro.
Hey, thats why Ken's so mad, he just realized that the Hudson Boys Geo is more advanced than his liner! :p
-
:p
<small>[ November 15, 2004, 08:48 PM: Message edited by: John Romero ]</small>
-
Between the rules committee meeting and the board meeting, the "dictators"" told the "sheep" how to vote, because they didn't want some "hillbilly" breaking their record. Just a thought.
-
:p
-
un?lim?it?ed ( P )Pronunciation Key (n-lm-td)
adj.
Having no restrictions or controls: an unlimited travel ticket.
Having or seeming to have no boundaries; infinite: an unlimited horizon.
Without qualification or exception; absolute: unlimited self-confidence.
Jon
-
Joe,
Do you consider yourself as a "Hillbilly"
hillbilly
n : a disparaging term for an unsophisticated person [syn: bushwhacker]
Jon
-
Originally posted by Joe Law 355 lakester:
Between the rules committee meeting and the board meeting, the "dictators"" told the "sheep" how to vote, because they didn't want some "hillbilly" breaking their record. Just a thought.
Yup, just what I thought, somrbody got beat.
Any bets on who it was ??
-
Just more rants on more ways..
Detecting tire slip can be done various ways. Some ETC units use wheel speed proximity sensors mounted on the wheels to detect a difference in wheel speed between the front and rear tires. A big difference indicates wheel slip. Others units compare ground speed registered with a small radar gun to rear wheel speed. Others monitor a speed signal indicative of engine rpm and use software to check the rate of change of this rpm signal. If it exceeds a certain rate of change (a fair indicator the drive tires are slipping), then engine power is affected. For example, flywheel teeth can be counted to get this rate of change of engine speed, as can transmission gear teeth (both requiring a potentially detectable proximity sensor). Or the ETC can closely monitor a tachometer signal via a direct connection or an inductive pickup mechanism like that used on an ignition timing light, or even by monitoring alternator electrical noise, which doesn't require a discrete sensor. (Ever hear alternator whine change pitch when listening to AM radio and driving?)
Once tire slip is detected, electronic methods are used to reduce/degrade the engine power to the wheels. Up to a max of about 15 percent of an engine's horsepower can be reduced with minimal indication it is being done. Start to degrade more than that percentage and tell-tale indicators like sound (engine note changes), temperature of the exhaust (increases), or fire coming out the exhaust pipes (unburned fuel) begin to show up. A common method of degrading engine performance with ETC these days is by retarding the ignition timing. Somewhere, a distributor signal wire that triggers an ignition control to fire has to be tapped and the signal delayed. Sanctioning bodies are counting on finding or restricting that tap-in point, and ETC makers are just as determined to circumvent any barriers.
If you're a sanctioning body thinking that you could eradicate ETC by reverting back to contact-point ignition systems, don't bother. It can be adapted to them, too.
Just going to prove that it cant be regulated,
Jon
<small>[ November 15, 2004, 09:09 PM: Message edited by: JonAmo ]</small>
-
It would be interesting to know just who on the board of directors voted for or against traction control and why? What was the reasoning? Was good judgement behind the the vote to ban TC?
If we are fairly represented by this board, it would seem they would be happy to explain why they voted the way they did.
Inquiring minds would like to know.
-
To All- Some of you mentioned the part in the rule book,"All out straightaway vehicles...innovation is unlimited". After the board voted to disallow TC, they voted to delete that section from the rule book also.....
-
Tom G- When you state on line about US 73yr. old drivers of Streamliners and putting an age limit on us, you put the gloves on yourself. What kind of a response do you expect. Yes, I agree, keep it on traction control.
-
After the board voted against allowing t. c. in "special constructin", I spoke with the board president and discussed the fact that this could be reconsidered at the Dec. 3 meeting. I reminded him of the rule change in the middle of the year in '88 after a fatal accident at El Mirage. I stated to him that we did not want to wait for a fatal accident at Bonneville to implement this rule change. His reply to me was "Even if there were to be another fatal incident,due to wheel spin, I would not change my mind on t c." To the board members who voted against t c on special construction, log on and state your reasons for your decision on this safety device.
-
Originally posted by Joe Law 355 lakester:
... His reply to me was "Even if there were to be another fatal incident,due to wheel spin, I would not change my mind on t c."...
I like to think of myself as open minded. Could someone explain to me the reasons why traction control is specifically banned? Whats wrong with it?
And please don't state sweeping generalizations, It is banned in all classes except for production cars that had it from the factory. Why would it be banned from Modified cars, vintage classes, classic classes, special construction? There are many valid reasons why specific classes should disallow it (like traction control on any V4 powered car, it would just be wrong) but why the wide ranging ban? Why on the modified, why on the special construction etc...
I think everything should be assumed legal, then specifically disallow things to build the character of a class. One should never assume the opposite i.e. it's illegal unless we say it's OK.
Thanks,
John Romero
-
Originally posted by Ken Walkey:
..."All out straightaway vehicles...innovation is unlimited". After the board voted to disallow TC, they voted to delete that section from the rule book also.....
No innovation = technological standstill.
Well, I guess that answers the Vintage Racer vs Hot Rodder question I posed earlier. We're running Vintage, each and every one of us. Hot Rodders always innovated. It wasn't always pretty but they made shit work in new ways. I guess we're now limited to making shit work in the same old ways.
-
I wondered how other people feel about the TC issue so I posted a poll. Please go and vote on it now.
http://www.landracing.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=000162 (http://www.landracing.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=000162)
Thanks,
John Romero
-
OK, I'll be unpopular. I'm vehemently opposed to traction control in all but the unlimited and non-classic production classes.
DF
-
So far only 18 people have replied from what I can gather. 12 are for TC, 4 did not state one way or the other, 2 are against TC. There have been a total of 57 replys, with John Romero leading the pack at 14, followed close by Jon Amo at 13 and Ken Walkey at 8.
-
Joe Law stated: "This same board criticized Earl Wooden after he crashed his Comp Coupe saying he spun his tires too hard, which caused a crash."
Joe, I know for a fact that Earl was not running the recommended rim width that Goodyear recommends for their tires. On the Comp Coupe Earl ran rims that were wider than Goodyear recommended, which may, or may not, have had something to do with his crash. I also know that Earl really wanted to get a record over 300 with the Comp Coupe, and I am sure the board knew it also, which would explain their reply.
-
What the board did not realize, or will not admit, is that Earl would not have crashed and he would not have gotten his record over 300. He would have had a pass that was slower in speed than when he crashed. Then he could have discussed with other racers or figured out for himself the rim and tire issues he might have been having.
-
For the record as well I am the one that sent the request for a rules change. If it was just thrown out I take great exception to that. I am not 73 and have no aspirations to drive a streamliner now or ever. I am an engineer that works on race cars and bikes, both LSR and modern ones. I have forwarded to Jon Amo a copy of the form I sent in. Dan Warner was kind enough to electronically send me the application form a long time ago. I wrote it and sent it On 12/10/2003 and deliberately did it after the rules meeting so there would be a whole year to think it over and make an intelligent decision. The rules committe did that and I personally thank them for their time and careful consideration. I have also forwarded to Jon a copy of the article that I wrote for the Bonneville Racing News that has an acurate rundown on why you need it and why it is a safty device.
Dave Dahlgren
-
Freiburger... I don't think that's an unpopular vote... that's what most of us are saying... you want to keep the vintage/classic class's running the way they do... don't allow traction control in them...but in the modified / unlimited class's don't limit our ability. allow us to use all the technology we decide is good for us.
One of my deals is that there is no way to enforce the issue no matter what class breaks you imply...
I may have been rash in my statement on the voting out the folks that don't agree with the majority... the one thing I do want to continue to point out is that the board has credibility to me because even if they don't like something they listen over and over again to the same issues... generally making the same decision each time.... but they do listen... and to me that is worthy of noting. Maybe there is something we will say here that will have not been heard in the past... and that will start to change someone's mind....
-
What I have learned in 15 years of Bonneville racing...
The SCTA is run by a group of car clubs in California. To be effective in making any difference in the rules or the directors you need to live in that area and be a member of a car club. Decisions seem to generally made based on feelings and values rather than any engineering input. In general it is impossible to get anyone to vote against their personal value system. The current board along with others brings with them their own feelings and value system. They are not going to vote against it as just witnessed on this issue. From what I can see the only progress allowed is progress that fits the boards value system that has somehow gotten stalled around 1970. So get over it. If you want to make a change move and join a car club and vote for different people. If you live in California, join a car club get active and vote for who best represents your values like any other election or better yet run for office and put in your time making things better for all.
As an example...
Dave Freiburger said he was against traction control in in most classes in one sentence. Is this a feeling or an engineering position? This is the same problem you have discussing it with the board. There is no open discussion when you get a one word or one sentence answer with reasons attached. They have closed the doors to discussion and are stating a personal value.
This is not a rant but a set of candid observations and personal evaluation of things I have seen over the years.
Ranting here will do little or no good. Sending a petion to reconsider the ruling might do more if the vote was not made on values but enginnering. Remember no one votes against their personal value system no matter what they may claim. The first thing to do would be to have someone in California ask the board the reason for their decision so that a reply from interested parties can be made and form a petion to reconsider the rules change based on logic and reason that shows a different perspective to the board that the rules committee did not get across to the board..
Another intereting piece of information would be the vote count by the board. Did it miss by one two or all.
Dave Dahlgren
-
Dave D., I was also one of those guys who sent in a rules change petition to allow traction control. My reasons are perhaps different than others. One, I believe that unlimited innovation means just that. Other wise the rulebook wording needs to be changed to say, ?Limited Innovation?. Two, there is absolutely no way the SCTA can realistically police the rule they have created. Fortunately for them the majority of us are rule abiding, but is everyone? Rules that are unenforceable are not in the association?s best interest.
Dave F., why are you vehemently opposed? I want to here your thoughts.
A board of directors is supposed to do what is, or (vote) in the best interest of the company (Association in this case). Has the SCTA board done that with traction control?
Personal feelings should not be a factor in any board decision. I suspect they have been and were in this case.
It would be nice to know how the board voted and why it turned down the technical committee?s recommendation? That way a proper reply could be written and sent before the next meeting.
John
-
Boy a lot of responses since yesterday. I need to have someting clarafied; after John R. said my 00 ans 03 Honda Civics did not have TC.
This was his response and I quote "But, you are correct, the "stock" ECU for my car (01 Civic Coupe LX) is not TC enabled, I had a one off JDM ECU flashed with it. I corrected my earlier post".
John runs in Altered and Fuel Coupe with his Honda and now the records he has set this year to me are in definate question. I am in impounds with Dan, Jim Miller and others and now my incedibility IS in question. How do I know whether it was activated or not or whether it can even be deactivated, I didn't know he had it since he admitted it here. What about his competition.
Sorry John but you brought it up. To me you have a lot of explaining to do...
Dan? Perhaps my leaving as Vintage Coupe and Sedan Chair will not be the only job I'll be leaving.. The only thing the SCTA continues to keep in it's forfront is it's credibility and now I need to question mine and I don't like to be placed in this position...
-
Originally posted by jimmy six:
Boy a lot of responses since yesterday. I need to have someting clarafied; after John R. said my 00 ans 03 Honda Civics did not have TC.
This was his response and I quote "But, you are correct, the "stock" ECU for my car (01 Civic Coupe LX) is not TC enabled, I had a one off JDM ECU flashed with it. I corrected my earlier post".
John runs in Altered and Fuel Coupe with his Honda and now the records he has set this year to me are in definate question. I am in impounds with Dan, Jim Miller and others and now my credibility IS in question. How do I know whether it was activated or not or whether it can even be deactivated, I didn't know he had it since he admitted it here. What about his competition.
Sorry John but you brought it up. To me you have a lot of explaining to do...
Dan? Perhaps my leaving as Vintage Coupe and Sedan Chair will not be the only job I'll be leaving.. The only thing the SCTA continues to keep in it's forfront is it's credibility and now I need to question mine and I don't like to be placed in this position...
JD, you are exactly right. Your credibility is in question, but not the way you think nor in a negative sense at all. I personally have met you a few times and think you are a good honest guy, someone I would consider a friend. BUT, anybody who techs cars for SCTA has been put in the position of certifying things that they can't check. I have 3 records set & certified this year by SCTA/BNI. Do you know that I did not use traction control? someone must because I have the blue record sheets that certified it. But in reality, you have to take my word for it. Is that a position you want to be in?
Also, to answer a specific question about wether or not I use traction control, the answer is no. my 1500cc engine only makes 99 ft-lbs of torque (really!) and I cant even break the front tires loose in 1st gear. It goes fast because I rev it too the moon.
But what will you do when I show up with my turbo motor? I KNOW that I wont run it and unless SCTA can prove I did then the records would have to stand. Is that something you want to be involved with? I cant see any way you could win?
But, before you single me out (scare tactic?) think about this. Every electronic fuel injection unit out there can do traction control. Do you trust everybody? you are gonna have too cause you wont be able to prove anything, and that should scare the shit out of everybody who wants to play by the rules, myself included.
Originally posted by jimmy six:
... How do I know whether it was activated or not or whether it can even be deactivated, I didn't know he had it since he admitted it here. ....
Exactly! so as a tech inspector, how do you propose to police this SCTA rule? Thats my point Originally posted by jimmy six:
... Sorry John but you brought it up. To me you have a lot of explaining to do...
Dont be sorry J.D. thats why I posted it. But to be correct, I dont have any explaining to do, I have the signed SCTA record sheets to PROVE I complied with every SCTA rule. And SCTA would not certify something it cant check would it?
Again, let me be VERY clear, I don't run traction control. The reason I posted the above is to demonstrate how impossible a traction control ban is to police.
Originally posted by jimmy six:
... What about his competition...
Exactly!
What are you going to say to the person whose record is broken and who suspects that TC was used to do it. A protest is filed. you hold the protest in your hand standing in front of the accused car. What then? are you going to poke the car with a stick? look for a big red switch on the dash labelled "TRACTION CONTROL ON". What? What do you say, what do you do? You cant assume that it was on and make the person prove it was not, you cant prove a negative. You have to prove it was on and thats damn near impossible!
And before you say "just ban systems with TC possibilities" then you just banned 95% of the EFI systems that are already in the pits.
Hmmmm, seems like we got a problem, a big problem.
Also JD, please don't drag this thing into the mud by suggesting that established records are now "in question", thats just a cheap scare tactic to keep people from voicing thier opinion. And if you, as an SCTA-BNI tech inspector HONESTLY think they are in question then that is the most damning indictment of the SCTA TC ban I have heard yet. That would mean all old records are now suspect and would signal a failure of the SCTA-BNI record certification process of the largest possible magnitide. Think about it.
Thanks,
John
<small>[ November 16, 2004, 12:26 PM: Message edited by: John Romero ]</small>
-
This disscusion reminds me of about 40 years age when I was helping Les Evans run his BCRA midget. The BCRA board seemed at that time to be made up of old men,and were against roll cages on their pretty little cars. The reasoning was that cages would only encourage reckless driving by making the drivers to brave. A good driver wouldn't need one. The pedal works both ways. After an unusally bad blood bath at San Jose we just seemed to lose interest in midget racing. That kind of thinking seems stupid now, but it was the rules then.
-
Originally posted by Freiburger:
OK, I'll be unpopular. I'm vehemently opposed to traction control in all but the unlimited and non-classic production classes.
DF
Thats not unpopular! I, for one agree with you 100%.
I think that TC on a "Classic" or "Vintage" car would just be wrong except to address a safety issue! A "Real" roadster has wheelspin!
I'm just fighting for all of us "modern era" car guys and the "unlimited" guys to be able to use modern & unlimited tools and not be bunched in with the "classic" minded guys.
There is room for all of us!
Here is what I personally think, your mileage may differ:
Special Construction: Allow TC
Vintage: No TC
Classic: No TC
Modified: Allow TC
Production: Allow TC
Diesel Truck: ???
Thanks,
John
<small>[ November 16, 2004, 12:24 PM: Message edited by: John Romero ]</small>
-
I think this topic has brought out the importance of having a site like this available to all of us land speed racers. I think the points on both sides have validity, but lets not regress into name calling, or mud throwing. Remember, the board is made up of racers just like you and me, and not everyone is going to be happy with any decision they make. That said, I think the proponents to the rule change, or any rule change, should start a petition by mailing every member of BNI or SCTA, and filing said petition with the board, rather than asking individually for particular changes. How about it Ken? One more thing, Jon Amo has done us all a great service creating this site, so lets help him pay for this site with a little moolah.
Bob Drury
Old Stud Racing
-
Nice answer John, more complete that I really needed. I not only respect your honestly but also expected it. As for the "mud slinging" about previous records now that we know from your comment about having it a class where it is illegal; you got your chance to speak on it before it came to a head at a later date and question what you have already done.
Don't think the rest of us in impounds don't think about what could possibly be in the vehicles we check. If someone has set a record, and even got in the 2 or 3 club with it they are the ones who sleep with it. In amature racing as it all racing your own integreity should be at the top of the list. As a engine displacement checker I get to see it first hand.
Your comment on vintage catagory "No" that maybe hard to pass thru if it goes every where else. Only a small margin use vintage engines in their vintage cars (but getting larger every year) where it should definatly be disallowed along with EFI and trick ignitions as it is now.
I can see Street, Gas/Fuel, Modified and now RE Modified Roadsters owners squeeling both ways, likely dividing this association. Using modern engines all the electronics are now allowed in the "vintage" catagory as it is in the "modified" catagory.
So in reality all we can expect is honesty and I do. Good Luck with this J.D. (Thank God I don't Vote)
-
I have a great puzzler for everyone.
How would check an electric car for traction control?
The sound of the engine perhaps?
Don't you think they ramp the current up gradually so as not to overspeed the drive motors?
Hmmmmm a little problem there? LOL
And how would you check it?
Better be safe and make it legal there as I promise you would never find buried inside the drive motor controlers...
Dave
-
Ive said this before, if F-1, CART, IRL, IMSA,& some even say NASCAR can't police it, why should the SCTA try? Our tech people are very good but if someone wants to use it they will. My feelings are let them run it if they want to, it seems most of the record holding fast cars havent needed it so if someone wants to slow down to go fast have at it.
Remember this is a CLUB, and if you want your own ball you got to get in the tree house. This is not new, lots of "groups" make it hard to join, not the SCTA. It takes lots of effort to run a volunteer organization, I'm glad someone takes the time, but it would be nice if the information they were voting on was easier to get. Not everyone can go to every board meeting, if the board is going to "hear & vote" on say 4 wheel drive roadsters i might like to be there. Of course we know the board makes up it's mind long before any meeting hense the problem. Just in case you can't tell, I think you should be able to use TC, lets me set more records while you are figuring out what settings to use.
Mike LeFevers
-
Dave Dahlgren, for general information, it is possible that more than one person can submit for a rule change on the same subject. Which in this case happened. It looks like at least 3 petions were sent in for TC. I do know that one of the persons involved was 73 years old. That same person was at the rules committe meeting telling everyone why TC in his opinion is needed.
More food for thought, at the Board meeting Alan Fogliadini got up and stated he had just talked to Al Teague. And Teague stated he was against traction control. Now here is a man that has probably gone over 300mph more than anyone else. Who has had his share of shreaded tires, who has lived this sport along time. Not many people more qualified than Teague to voice an opinion on this subject.
-
Visualize this, tech is shut down all day because they are all helping certify that every car in impound does not have any of the many gizmos (including electronics ) available to prevent traction control. Meanwhile, the single ambulance has taken a nosebleed victim to the hospital after he falls off a skateboard in the pits, thereby closing both courses, and we all are at each others throats. Give me some Valium, please.....and lets stop the "he said, she said" crap, speak for your self or don't speak at all.
Bob
-
YOU CANT POLICE IT. NASCAR TRIED but they could not find the computer or in the wiring. You know why the transmitter was hidden in an electrical box and the program making the decisions was in the grandstands with a cell phone and a palm pilot.
You would have to break each vehicle down to nothing and open ever little electrical box, analyze everybodies EFI programs.
Jonathan
<small>[ November 16, 2004, 02:10 PM: Message edited by: JonAmo ]</small>
-
Originally posted by jimmy six:
Nice answer John, more complete that I really needed. I not only respect your honestly but also expected it. .... Good Luck with this J.D. (Thank God I don't Vote)
I know there was a reason I liked you. :cool:
-
No one has addressed this from my original post so here goes. Do any of you care what functions the driver is responsible for in running the race car? Why do you want to take the control of a race car away from the driver? Does the driver play a role any more on how fast a car goes? In the name of safety should we just let the Motec unit run the whole car. Maybe we should get rid of the 200 and 300 mph clubs, because it is obvious to me you want to get rid of the driver and the skills they posess. We could start an new 200, 300, 400, 500 mph clubs that would only let car owners in, since the driver is just sitting in the car and going for a ride, maybe watching his favorite DVD on his pop down screen, while the computor runs the car. Yes isn't technology great. I don't think so.
Regards,
Tom Gerardi
-
yeah and we need to get rid of all that
other electronic crap, cuz a real man
can manage the fuel and ignition events himself just fine with cables/weights/springs..........
matter of fact, a real race team should have pre
1940 tow rigs, and generate his own electricity ....
I will be happy to let the monkey try to watch
dvd's on my bike while tc takes care of the rest.......
I tell Ferrari to save alot of money and put
me in the computer controlled F1 car.......
Joe
<small>[ November 16, 2004, 02:50 PM: Message edited by: joea ]</small>
-
Tom,
That's an interesting point. I have thought of Land Speed Racing as more a test my skills as a builder/tuner than as a driver. Maybe thats why some cars put lots of people in the 2 club. Was it the people or the car they drove?
I don't drive 300 MPH, I putz around at 160 or so and to be honest, there is not alot of skill involved. At least not as much as making the 1,487cc engined full size car that can go that fast.
Maybe that's the difference. I see myself as an Engineer, not a driver. I just happen to be the one who drives the car when it runs. I see TC as another tool (not) available to me and I want to be able to use it, to Engineer a better race car. Does any one else feel this way or am I in the minority?
John
-
Originally posted by desotoman:
because it is obvious to me you want to get rid of the driver and the skills they posess.
Ha Ha, Tom, I miss more shifts than I make. I wish I had an Auto-Trans!
:p
John
-
Wow, I didn't know it until I started reading these posts but I have been using a rudimentary TC system for years. Here's how it works: sensor #1(eyes) monitors the rpm,s, sensor #2 (ears) monitors the sound of the engine, sensor #3 (ass) feels the rear end breaking loose. this data is sent to a CPU (brain) and then a signal is sent to the throttle control mechanism(foot) and the required adjustments are made. I really like this system it's a little more challanging than some of the newer TC systems but it's a lot more fun. When too many of the actual driving skills are taken away it seems to me to be like a really loud vidio game. I do however think that in the unlimited classes it should be exactly that..Unlimited. It makes more sense than putting wings on modified roadsters.
You know what would be the ultimate TC system. Put a prop on that sucker....That was for you Glen.
Later,
Dallas
-
Ok wait WE NEED TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.
What is traction control? Defined by the SCTA.
WHAT was the tech committee investigating? Safety or taking the driver away from the car??
Would traction control if working correctly been able to or prevented excessive tire spinning leading to a accident or a spin.
Ok I hear the argument of being a man and being able to detect tire spin. Are you saying earl wooden, Seth Hammond, Lee Guftason, Wilson/Waters crew and the many countless people who have spun they are not good drivers.
Just maybe in Hammonds case, they are hitting a aero wall of some sort making the rear tires spin and causing spins. Same distance on track, same speeds. Traction control could help prevent this. a computer can tell the difference in milliseconds and help control the spining tires.
Just more rants, I guess this is post like 15 or something Romero but I think all but two posts are very relevent to the info at hand.
Jon
-
Originally posted by Dallas:
...I have been using a rudimentary TC system for years. ...
HE ADMITS IT!!!!!
BAN HIM!
BAN HIM!
BAN HIM!
OFF WITH HIS HEAD!!!!!!!
:D
-
Dallas.... if you were any good at that stuff your sister wouldn't spank your butt... maybe an upgrade to a newer cpu is in your future...
I don't think anyone is saying that you have to run TC by the way... ( look Dallas doesn't )
Ps... Tell Megan we miss her back east...
-
Originally posted by Dave Dahlgren:
I have a great puzzler for everyone.
How would check an electric car for traction control?
Good question dave, the one that runs out there works under tarps so I cant see much with panels off.
Jon
-
Easy Jon...Just saying it's a lot of fun being able to feel and control what the car is doing, not questioning anyones driving ability. That's all I need is all the members of the 360 degree club lining up to whoop my ass at the next meet. all though it is amazing to me that KT hasn't looped his car yet...I've seen him spin out walking thru the pits. My new vote is it is mandatory anyone who has spun to have traction control. I also think I saw TC on one of the barstools out there.
Just making waves for my own amusement.
Dallas
-
Geez, I spun twice about 100 yards from the starting line at speedweek this year, so maybe if I can convince my crew that it was a faulty traction control, they won't think I am such a doofus...
Doofus Bob
-
p.s. I actually only spun once, but saw the mountains go by twice.....
double p.s. Dallas, that is a classic Quote. If you don't mind, I might tatoo it on my chest.
-
So brings another question on how to police it.
If for example the Electric car goes, and I can't ever see the vehicle, because when they are in the pits they work under tarps, when they tow to line all panels are on, when in impound they work under tarps, I never get to thourghly look at the vehicle. Who knows what they do under the tarps they are under them all the time, maybe removing and installing stuff who knows? If I would decide to challenge that is does have traction control,
How or what does the scta do to investigate it? How do they know what to look for? Do they impound the vehicle? For how long? If you have to do it in writing within a certain period of time. How about after the last day of event? I protest. What does the scta take the vehicle home with them to inspect? If the car is already in tow home how do you investigate it?
Just ranting some more.
Jonathan
-
There was a comment off the list here that was made, why do you slow guys care if there is traction control, you dont see any fast guys complaining about it.
We lets just say I beleive in Innovation, when you limit someone in an unlimited class or say you can or can't do this that limits innovation and if its about safety on why you cant, OK. I may not personally use it but I will fight for the people that can or would like to use it. The bottome line is I love the sport, I love the freedom of the sport, and I love speed wether its me or the next guy, or the super fast guys, or TC allowed production geo metro's its all about going fast safe and fun. TC would or could make it safe lets try it. You outlaw rear engine roadsters, but you let them run. They are proving a point you can go fast with it. How about a stepping stone and allowing it to test it.
Jon
-
Just maybe in Hammonds case, they are hitting a aero wall of some sort making the rear tires spin and causing spins. Same distance on track, same speeds. Traction control could help prevent this. a computer can tell the difference in milliseconds and help control the spining tires.
Jon, sorry but not likly. The computer shows no wheel spin at this time. An aero wall would have made it just as hard for Emmons & Howe to go over three hundred. Seth will work through it just like any other competitor. Of course if they did have TC it would not have spun, they wouldn't have set any records ether because they would have been going slower.
<small>[ November 16, 2004, 04:40 PM: Message edited by: Dynoroom ]</small>
-
I do believe the Board may have voted to strike the words "inovation is unlimited" from the rule book at the November meeting..
When I started running my roadster in 1981, I heard those famous words "The sun rises in the east and sets in the west, in the USA you will pay taxes, and roadsters spin.. It took mine until 2000 to do it; so far it's only time.
I eliminated the wheel spin in 2003 by breaking the transmission so it only had high gear. That, in conjuction with a 250 gear and 32" tires, I couldn'd break it loose, needing all 5 miles to get up to speed. TC in the foot (wide open from the 1 mile) Nothing to do but glance at the guages and look for the 5 mile marker...
Hey maybe next year I'll just radio in my HP, Drag #'s, Gear ratio, planned RPM etc. and they can award me the record, Cert, and Timing tag.
One note: Lee G's modified is a new car and 240+ is fast...Sometimes it takes a little time to sort out problems and TC may mask some of them.
4 Pages and gaining ground...What a thread!!! JD
-
As far as driving talent goes if anyone that races at Bonneville and does not have an F1 team or Winston Cup well Nextel Cup team endlessly leaving messages on their voice mail is not a pro.
A better test would be would all the LSR drivers that think they are as good as a pro driver please take one step back in the line.
That will leave 2 kinds of drivers. The ones that are actually pros and that is what they do to pay the bills and the ones that know they are not and realize they are in fact no where near pro caliber but have some fun driving a fast car or bike every now and then.
With the amount of available seat time in a LSR car there is little or no way anyone can reach the skill level of a pro driver, they get more seat time in one week than most LSR guys get in several seasons..
So drop the ego and lets all admit the drivers for the most part are amatuers..
Same goes for the real ability to feel wheel spin in the 3 to 5 % range that will still kill a tire.
Dave Dahlgren
-
So JD if all you need is high gear why did ya buy the big buck 4 speed I heard about or is that all just a fantasy some one else had when I heard about it??
Dave Dahlgren...
-
quote from desotoman...
"More food for thought, at the Board meeting Alan Fogliadini got up and stated he had just talked to Al Teague. And Teague stated he was against traction control. Now here is a man that has probably gone over 300mph more than anyone else. Who has had his share of shreaded tires, who has lived this sport along time. Not many people more qualified than Teague to voice an opinion on this subject. "
Hmm let me think this is the same Al Teague that has an electronic slip indicator in his car and 3 special construction records or a different one?? Actually this is what I have been told on several occasions by people that inspected the car.. so it is hearsay..
Absolutly hilarious does anyone ever condsider the source or even give anything a little thought?? Excuse me pardon me the tablets are being handed down from the heavens... Hello wake up...
Dave Dahlgren
-
Put your tire company liability hat on for a minute and think.
If a tire failure was caused by a wheel that was wider than recommended by the tire company, how do you think they feel about the organization that allowed it to happen, if it did?
When they read about all of the feelings related to TC, what do you think they are going to do?
Is it possible that they will require traction control to limit liability?
An unenforceable rule is no better than winking at a girl/guy in the dark.
Does anybody remember the GMC truck driven by Stringfellow?
They had a real time satellite feed to a motorhome on the Salt and also monitored by the home office.
They got beat by a Monza made into a Buick with a V6 and a 850 carb.
Oh, that was FIA, never mind. Apparently, money doesn't win races but speed does. Safety will help the future.
<small>[ November 16, 2004, 05:41 PM: Message edited by: JackD ]</small>
-
Here's the bottom line. In the past 20 years the automotive industry along with the aftermarket industry have learned how to electronicly monitor and/or reprogram the performance characteristics of the entire drivetrain to the point that some of these changes are undetectable to even the trained profesional. I personaly hate computers, and everything they have brought forath in the industry, but lets face it, they are here to stay, and nothing stays the same forever. I run my car in the classic catagory, so I don't anticipate traction control ever being allowed in my class, however, its time for the board to come to grips with the reality that in this new age of electronics, there is no way to control or for that fact even find electronic traction controls. I can understand the "purists" point of view, but you guys are fighting a UNWINABLE BATTLE. Why not amend the rules if for no other reason than for safety? Don"t let your egos overrun your common sense. We don't need any more tragic high speed accidents, especially with the current problems with tire manufacturing and chute failures.
Bob
-
Bob,
I agree with you 100% except that I love electronics and the freedom it allows to make the engine do what you want. Because of that, I don't run the classic category.
The great thing about our sport is the diversity in what shows up at the starting line. Not everybody shows up with your idea of a hot rod, but that dont mean it should be banned. I want to see classics, vintage rods, semis, motorcycles, sidecars and yes, even high tech cars all in the same line at the same event. That is my idea of heaven.
Thanks for seeing both sides.
John
-
Dave Dahlgren, I have also heard that Al had some kind of gauge that would indicate when he was getting tire spin, revealent to the front tire speed. That is all. It does not control anything. It is just for information. No different than an oil pressure gage. It allows the DRIVER not COMPUTOR to make an informed decision on how to drive the race car. You lost me, what is wrong with a unit that detects wheel spin and lets the driver decide what to do?
Regards,
Tom Gerardi
-
Dave D! I'll never be a professional driver. I have always known it. Cut a few good lights at the drags (very few). The "big buck" 4-speed worked as planned. Started in 1 to 1 which is now 3rd and was only planning on using the overdrive .96 if needed. My son did use it and shifted as planned with no clutch (shift it like your stealing it) and it worked perfectly. To bad we changed so much in the fuel delivery system we didn't find out how good it may be. I'll continue to use it with my parts wash motors from now on. Since I'm now back to my own stuff maybe I'll get to try a scoop or air system designed for it..I know Ill be talking to you again. JD... Still glad I'm not on the board. Right Dan
-
Tom, I don't know how fast you have driven, but I can tell you personaly that having driven the same car 220 mph that I first drove at l60 mph, there is one hell of a lot less reaction time to get yourself out of trouble. In your earlier post you refered to the fact that Al Teague has more 300 mph runs than anyone else. Whats your point? Every driver starts out at zero, and Al had the benifit of many runs before he went 300, let alone 400, but what about the driver who is just steping up in a new or faster car? Every run is a new learning experience, and you seem to want to deny a practical safety device for those who choose to run it. It is impractical for a new driver to make a multitude of "sneak up" passes until he or she get into trouble. Do you still use a hand crank drill motor at home? This is the time to think about safety, not the purity of the sport, and yes this is a sport, a sport with a lot of thrills and heartaches, but not a sport where safety should be overruled by ones self imposed "historical correctness".
-
"Desotoman"-once again, What has being 73years old (and a Streamliner driver)got to do with TRACTION CONTROL ???
-
Dallas
Me thinks a rear steer propster would solve the TC thing. What the heck it's a wide open inovative class of the future, just ask Frankie.
LOL.
Glen
-
Glen- would we have "Unlimited" diameter and pitch of the prop, or would the board put it in a "Limited" class ?
-
the quotes below speak volumes and really sadden
me
""""I was at the rules committee meeting and I voted... when someone wants something to pass real bad it is always classified as a safety issue..... """"
"""This issue was submitted by a person who is 73 years old....SCTA should be looking into putting an age limit on driving streamliners....
""Finally, a guy in our club has traction control on his Audi. At World finals he ran 150mph without it. With it he ran 178mph. A net gain of 28mph with the aid of a computor driving with him.""
Desotoman, I am utterely sure your heart is well placed, TRUELY wanting the best for landspeed racing and SCTA, I can see being uneasy
about unknown territory
Discourse like this can only help in the long run
JOe :)
-
Everyone would be required to run the prop backwards in keeping with the tradition set by the one that went before them.
Stu set the sport on the path of destruction with that fuel injection.
-
Jack
Then some yuppie added electrinics to it and screwed up the tune it by ear bunch, Wern't they the famous Luguna leanouts.
LOL
-
so I guess we are waiting on the answer to what is traction control, why was it over ruled and banned at board meeting. And if one were to bring an argument to the board for allowing it, if we go with its a safty issue then it will be mandated. I don't think anyone here wants to "Mandate" traction control. We would just like to have the option to run it if we would like. Ok so if it reduces the power and we go slower then I guess the guy without it goes faster.
Or is the argument there is no way to police it so you should allow it. That is my sticking point, can't police it so allow it. And in the process you also make it optional.
I dont think that allowing it wont make us not amateurs. Just better amateurs.
The good point is said to allow it only on the lakesters and streamliners. I would even go for that personally. Or how about a bike in there somewhere.
Desoto Man said
"Why do you want to take the control of a race car away from the driver?"
I say do they steer it, can they brake it, can they take their foot off the pedal? the answer is yes that can do all of it.
John Romero wrote
"I want to be able to use it, to Engineer a better race car. Does any one else feel this way or am I in the minority?"
I say also I want to use it because I have the OPTION to use it.
Mike Lefevers wrote
"Of course if they did have TC it would not have spun, they wouldn't have set any records ether because they would have been going slower."
I say what's more important?
quote from desotoman...
"More food for thought, at the Board meeting Alan Fogliadini got up and stated he had just talked to Al Teague. And Teague stated he was against traction control. Now here is a man that has probably gone over 300mph more than anyone else. Who has had his share of shreaded tires, who has lived this sport along time. Not many people more qualified than Teague to voice an opinion on this subject. "
So Al can tell us all about the feeling of running both traction control and not? Hard to be against it if you haven't tried it isn't it? (no disprespect to Al) Just answering a quote.
Jonathan
-
Bob Drury-Sorry for the delay to your question on petitions, Yes, a very good idea, but again, I don't think the board will listen. It's a control thing you know.
-
Ken W. I was responding to Dave Dalgren's post on page 3, 11 posts down. It is OK if I respond to a post isn't it?
Now I have a question for all of you Pro Traction Control people. All of you are stuck in the "Saftey mode", that traction control will save your butts. So now what happens when I program my Motec to allow my car to accelerate my rear tires by the 6-10% faster than the front tires. Which is needed to run a record. Will this now be considered a saftey item. Will this abuse of traction control stop the shredding of tires. If my rear tires are spinning am I not technically out of control. Have any of you thought of this kind of abuse? Then what happens when someone gets killed because he or she abused something that was passed in the name of Safety?
Not all people were made to be race car drivers. If a car or speed scares you, it is time to get out of that class and go to a slower class. Or get a driver who is qualified and not scared of the car or speed.
Regards,
Tom Gerardi
-
Tom... I don't understand why your against it... doesn't make sense to me... and I'm not for calling it a safety gig... ( not saying it's true or not..) If you don't want to run TC and it was legal... Don't run it... but why not permit me to run it? is it because other folks couldn't compete against it?
Progress is a fascinating thing... following the logic along here... in the 50's we would have outlawed OHV's... and in the 60's we couldn't have Automatic transmissions...( ya know a Driver has to shift to be a real driver ) and in the 80's you would have to outlaw EFI... oh wait ... we did that in the classic class...
Turbo's.. ... we gotta outlaw them Turbo's cause they are stomping our blower records...
You get the point... it's all about shifting our mindset as technology allows... none of us are stuck without computors are we?
Keith
-
Well you could use a Motec or you could use an EFI tech or a Pectel.. the list is pretty long. But to answer your question yes you can set the slip point at whatever you like. In the lower gears 6 to 10% is probably realistic, but at terminal it is also probably too much depending on the speed of the tire. A 300 mph car has a wheel speed around 3600 rpm with a 28 inch tire. 360 rpm of slip would be a problem heat wise. The problem is most drivers can both feel and hear the slip on pavement. From everything I have seen at the salt it is more like driving on hard packed snow and once the tire starts spinning it takes a little more time to reel it back in. This may be due to the water under the salt or the basic nature of the substance. But I have seen data logs of very accomplished drivers that said the car was on rails no problems and they were turning the tires up pretty good. So I think the feed back is hard to find for the driver. At the end of the day you can not go any faster than you have traction to do it. Going 300 with 10% slip is no faster than going 300 with 2% slip. The problem is all about aero loading, downforce and traction thru the wheels and suspension. All traction control does is not slip the tires you end up going as fast as the traction allows and no faster, but you do it with less drama and less chance of overheating a tire. A better name for it would be slip control by power reduction. real traction control uses the brakes not the rev limiter. It slows down the slipping wheel with the brake and lets the others do their job. That is traction control. That is not what we are talking about in the first place and no one even seems to understand the most basic facts in this issue. If you don't know the difference between slip control thru power reduction and real traction control how can you even have a logical position on the issue?
As far as a driver or rider being scared. I would worry a lot about one that did not have a healthy respect for running over 200 mph let alone 300 or 400.. Is that scared, no but a little concern is always good.
The other thing that every seems to miss is the driver with or without slip control is pretty busy. At 440 ft per second I suspect they are quite busy. If you compared this to a jet fighter pilot trying to land at 300 wouldn't it be more like a controlled crash?
The reaction times of a lot of the drivers and actually I would have to say most because in general this is not a young mans sport from what I have seen at the starting line. I would have to guess the median age some where around 50 to 55. The drivers are over the hill in reaction times by a long shot and no amount of talent or practice can fool mother nature, it just takes longer as you get older so everyone ought to just own up to it. Do you se many 55 year old F1 drivers??
At the end of the day every time there is a ruling with no answer that makes sense it comes down to El Mirage and car club points , or am I missing something ? The thing that amazes me is the rules committee I assume is apointed by the board to give them recommendations that would make things better safer and fairer. These people are apointed because the board has great faith in their judgement and technical ablility to come up with sensible solutions to hard problems. From what I heard the vote was 14 in favor and 1 not in favor of TC/slip control. So the rules commettee is over 93% sure that TC/slip control is a good idea. What happened to the trust in the rules committee? What is the point of even having a rules committee if a recommendation that was favored by this percentage is ignored? Lets just let the board tell everyone the way it is going to be because that is what they want and don't bother with any explanation because you are argueing an opinion rather than a fact.
At this point I wish no one else had put in for a rules change concerning this as I suspect it probably muddied the issue. All I wanted was a simple enforceable definition as to what constituted real traction control using the brakes as OEM's use. It is also quite dangerous to develop on your own in your garage using the brakes. This is easy to enforce, you can see the actuator. Slip control though power reduction is impossible to detect period. It equally will not let you go faster in a straight line. It will allow you to corner faster though. Remember all the places that it is outlawed, at least the ones that make sense as NHRA raely makes sense to me, are all about cornering and making a spectator event. NASCAR is not racing it is a staged production for entertainment and advertising.
Hello we have no cornering in LSR at least not intentional cornering.
Dave Dahlgren
-
Originally posted by desotoman:
Now I have a question for all of you Pro Traction Control people. All of you are stuck in the "Saftey mode", that traction control will save your butts.
Hey Tom have you read my posts above. I stated if we go with its a safty issue then it will be mandated. I don't think anyone here wants to "Mandate" traction control. We would just like to have the option to run it if we would like. Ok so if it reduces the power and we go slower then I guess the guy without it goes faster.
Also if you are dead against it and you were at the Board meeting WHY DONT YOU TELL US WHY THEY BANNED IT. GIVE US A REASON. I THOUGHT YOU WERE On the RULES COMMITTEE.
Jon
-
Dave, thanks for pointing out the difference between TC and Slip Control.
Yes there is a HUGE difference.
For those that not had the pleasure of driving a high HP car with TC I challenge you to go test drive a new Corvette. I have had that pleasure. With the TC on it was one of the worst drives I've ever had.With it on I had no clue what it was going to do. With it off I could feel what the car was doing and make the correct driving input changes.
TC no thanks. SC YES. Safer yes.... but not a saftey device.
Now I'll rant about the cost. You just spent $600.00- $1000.00 on rear tires. Opps gone in one pass. Bummer. Hope you brought a spare set or two with you. Cause you ain't gonna find them on the salt. Thats a lot of money tied up in just tires.
One of the ignition boxes that the SCTA has banned is the MSD # 75314. It was made to buy as a complete... bolt on, plug and play unit for my GM Ecotec engine.Hummmmmm I am now in searh of something that won't cost twice as much or require twenty hours of fab time to work.I'm not mad or angry. Rules are rule's and I like my stuff to be legal.
-
At the top of page one(1),When I seem to have started all of this, I made the statement "Streamliners and Lakesters are the ultimate, UNLIMITED way of doing your thing in LSR, lets keep it that way", and I strongly believe that. Other classes, cars and bikes, all have your guidelines to establish those certain classes, as it should be. The Special Construction classes are just that,Special Construction. This is where we try that new manifold, that new fuel injection, that super new design kind of blower, this is where we can take a V-8, and only run 4 cylinders of it, or cut it in half. This is where we can even run the front (or rear) wheels in tantam like a bycicle, this is the protype, development class, or classes of LSR. How about those crazy guys that took the horse away from the buggie, and put a gasoline motor in it....now we have air conditioning, electric windows and a buggie that can take us almost anywhere, at a faster speed and much safer. Ford,GM, and yes, even Audi can't all be wrong. We've had a very good healthy discussion, pro and con, on this subject of traction control. We cannot stop progress as long as we have people that think. I once again ask the SCTA/BNI board to stop and think, and leave the Streamliner and Lakester classes "as is", the ultimate, UNLIMITED way of doing things.
I promiss...I will say no more, amen
-
Maybe what we need here is to disallow any board member from voting on this issue unless he or she has driven a car over 250mph on both dry and wet salt. Secondly, maybe no one over 55 should be allowed to vote on it because statistics show we aren't as quick as we used to be. How about that, Tom?
-
It never has been Unlimited and it will never be. It will always be limited by the rules. You'll never be able to put a monkey in as a driver with a rocket-powered car launched from a satellite. That's limited by the rules. It's a shame if they had to reword it -- it still is Unlimited in so many other ways that other racing organizations are not. Land Speed Racing is not guaranteed under the Constitution. We all make the choice as to racing under the SCTA rules. And we have the opportunity to change their rules -- either thru the Rules Committee or thru changing the Board of Directors. And a poll taken on this website is not necessarily representative of all Land Speed Racers. If this website was, we'd all be riding motorcycles and trying to get on self-serving top ten lists.
-
Just to clarify one point, then I promiss to "shut up", The rules committe that voted 14 to 1 in favor of TC, for the most part,are the same people (board members) Who voted in the following board meeting to disallow it. frustrating --yes. Thats what got this whole conversation started.
-
Keith Turk, I have always felt it takes two things to set a record. One a good race car, two a good driver. I have aways admired the people in the two club as being good drivers. I personally feel if you let the computor take control over the drive tires, then you have just eliminated the driver. Then in my opinion the two club hat should go to the computor tech who made the run possible. By letting a computor run the car you have just put driving on a level playing field. I don't feel that is right.
Dave Dahlgren, one of the persons who submitted a rule change and was talking for traction control(at the rules meeting) was only implying that this was needed for safety, no other reason. He stated that when being pushed off on the salt, one of the people in the push truck told him he was getting sideways. He said he did not know it was even happening. I believe this scared him. Then he started to talk about pencil rolling his streamliner etc, etc. Bottom line he said this was a SAFTEY ISSUE. After much dicussion a vote was taken. I got to vote because I was representing my car club. Even though I am against taking any control away from the driver, I had to think about how my club would want me to vote. So I voted against my personal feeling and voted yes to accept TC. I don't think this has anything to do with El Mirage and Car Club points.
Jon Amo, I cannot speak for the board. I can tell you TC was bought up, there was discussion, the board voted on it and it failed. What more do you want to know? I did not go around and ask everyone of the board members why they vote like they did. I just respect their decision. I never said I was on the Rules Committee. I was at the Rules committee meeting, and did vote. I was representing my car club, which is why I was allowed to vote. If you want to know who is allowed to vote I suggest you contact Dan Warner. Oh and Jon you don't have to yell at me in your post(capital letters) I am not hard of hearing.
Regards,
Tom Gerardi
-
For Tom and everyone else here is what i submitted for the rules change so you don't go putting words in my mouth and you know what i asked for and not what you think i asked for.. I don't know about the other person and honestly that is not my concern. Please try to find the word safty device in my petition.. All i stated is that if activated it would reduce power output and put the car in a safer set of operating conditions. Just like a rev limiter.. but real men probably don't need those either..
Dave Dahlgren
PETITION FOR RULE CHANGE OR CLARIFICATION
Petitioner: David Dahlgren 860-536-9192 home
2 Ashby Street 860-536-6125 work
Mystic CT.06355 860-536-7235 fax
ddahlgren@snet.net
Issue: Definition of traction control vs. engine control
Relevant Rule: Section _2Q____ Pages # 19 and 20 in 2003 rulebook
Desired Outcome:
Allow engine controls to actively control engine output by any means using inputs including wheel speed and tire slip. This should always result in a decrease of power and a safer situation rather than a more dangerous one. The engine builder should have full control over the operation of the engine for any reason they see fit. The control mechanism should comply with the current rules for Vintage, Classic or standard classes. I.E. electronic or mechanical as required.
Reason change is necessary:
The current rule concerning traction control is unenforceable and ambiguous. The current definition of traction control does not state what traction control is and is not. The penalty for mis-interpretation is severe considering how loosely worded the current definition is currently stated. This new definition prohibits what is dangerous to a competitor and allows a simpler method to check for something that is potentially dangerous. Reducing engine power output moves the car to a safer set of operating conditions, applying a single brake does not. Most electronic engine controls have this feature built in at no extra cost or minimal extra cost and it is problematic to check if the option is operating or not, there are no simple tests that can not be defeated easily.
What are the side effects? (Example: 20 new classes, records voided, etc.)
None concerning new classes or old records. Very possibly a safer racing environment if this change decreases tire failures due to excessive slip.
Desired Rulebook (re) wording:
Page 20 paragraph 2 of rule 2Q "Active microprocessor or non-driver controlled anti-wheel spin (traction control) devices are not allowed…)" Add definition that "Traction control devices are defined as anything that will operate the brakes either individually or as a group, in order to reduce wheel slip, that is not driver controlled though the use of the brake pedal. No actuators either electronic or mechanical are allowed in the wheel braking system that are not directly controlled by the brake pedal. Other devices such as pressure sensors, balance valves and fluid level indicators are allowed"
_
Forward this form to appropriate car or motorcycle technical chair listed in rulebook.
Note* You may be required to research and develop information concerning the effects of this proposed change.
-
Ken Walkey states "The rules committe that voted 14 to 1 in favor of TC, for the most part,are the same people (board members) Who voted in the following board meeting to disallow it."
What does "for the most part" mean? 80% or 90% or 100%? Ken, funny I don't remember seeing you at the rules committee meeting. So how would you know who voted and for what. I was at both the rules meeting and the board meeting. I saw who voted and who didn't.
People who are allowed to vote at the rules committee meeting are: Club reps, Club Presidents, and Board members. At the rules committee meeting there were more Club reps and club Presidents there that voted, than board members.
Tom Gerardi
-
Tom I thank you for your answer.. I don't agree with it but I respect your right to have it... As adults we have the ability to agree to disagree with no hard feelings.
My opinion is that it's no different then having an automatic trans or the previous performance advantages I listed before. Technology advances should be allowed in our sport and we as competitors should let the chips fall where they may.
Again... Thank's for sticking your neck out here and answering your side of it...
-
Committee chairmen are also allowed to vote at the rules meeting. In the past the first order of business is to designate who the voters are ie: the list that Tom said. I would have liked to have been there as the Vintage Coupe and Sedan chairmman however, no mention of the meetings was in any Board and Reps minutes until the day prior at a Reps meeting. One the few meetings I've missed in 25 years..O Well..J.D.
-
Tom- please try to understand what is, or has been going on. The board members that were on the rules committe are the ONLY ones that really count. Those are the ones that changed their minds when it came time at the board meeting to vote. The rest of you were there for a so-called rules meeting, which when it came time to vote, you did not exist--you don't count. Remember, Board Members Rule!
-
Sorry Ken but I disagree with your statement. On TC subject that maybe true but on many others the non-elected (appointed) members have voted the same way as the committees have suggusted. The first question asked is normally "how does the 'whatever' committee feel on the subject" Most of them feel that each committee does it's job the best it can and they take the reccommendation....TC is alot tougher than all the rest and old predugices (sorry on the spelling) die hard..Glad I still don't vote. J.D.
-
Originally posted by desotoman:
Now it is lets build the best car let the computor drive it and let the person who spent a couple of hundred thousand dollars go for a ride even if they don't have any driving skills.
Regards,
Tom Gerardi
Tom,
Not a valid argument on TC cars. The SCTA already allows anybody to build a car and run it, even if its a first time driver with no driving skills with or without traction control.
So if you build a large dollar car without traction control and no driving skills you can still run it. Try again.
Jon
-
JD-your right on some other subjects. On TC the board members present in the so-called rules committe voted for it. When it came time for the "offical" vote, they reversed their original stance. None of us non-board members really count. We work, we try to contribute where we can, but when it comes down to what we have now, like I said,"Board Members Rule". And like it or not thats the way it is, you or I cannot change it.(my point of view only)
-
Its funny that I have learned that several months ago a letter went out to a select group of people who are SCTA-BNI members to state their opinion on traction control. How come I was not given the opportunity to state my opinion. I am a BNI member, the last time I checked anyway. I paid money to be a member.
I am not a fast guy, but I have talked with several fast guys and 99% were in favor of traction control. Some said they would not use it, others said hell yes.
Like Marlo T. I asked him a question, "If traction control was allowed would you use it on your new streamliner?" His response without even thinking was "Yes".
Anybody else get his letter and was allowed to express an opinion on it?
Jonathan
-
I guess we need to just ban everyone who runs a rev limiter, becuase that could be a form of traction control. Computer controlled ignition retard or fuel cutoff even when the drivers pedel is to the floor they can keep it there and run right off the rev limiter. Wait the computer is now not in control of the vehicle because the computer is now driving the car, right Tom your whole argument so far has been taking away the driving skills and letting the computer drive the car. Is this not the same thing?????
Jon
<small>[ November 17, 2004, 10:14 PM: Message edited by: JonAmo ]</small>
-
I dont expect SCTA to try to garner the opinion
of every person that paid dues.....I respect their efforts to make the best informed decisions that they are able........
this discourse is priceless, and as with all things in life, WILL work out as intended.......this process and banter is very educational, vital and needed.........
life is good.........
THANKS very much Dave for posting that rules
submission data, it is a very strong piece for the SCTA to work with......
Joe Amo :)
<small>[ November 17, 2004, 10:24 PM: Message edited by: Joe Amo ]</small>
-
Jon, you got to realize, its hard to have a open mind and clear vision when your head is in the sand, er salt I mean................
-
Ken Walkey
Unlimited license to Drive Streamliner #122
Member # 282
posted November 17, 2004 02:15 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just to clarify one point, then I promiss to "shut up", The rules committe that voted 14 to 1 in favor of TC, for the most part,are the same people (board members) Who voted in the following board meeting to disallow it. frustrating --yes. Thats what got this whole conversation started.
-------------------------------------------------
Ken, In a previous post I tried to give you a hint about the above post you made, in a nice way and you have not taken the hint. So now I will be blunt. You don't know what the hell you are talking about. You were not at the rules meeting. As far as I am conserned your credibility has gone down the toilet.
I only remember 4 board members at the rules committee meeting, out of a possible 18 board members. That leaves 11 votes that came from NON BOARD members. You are speading lies that make it sound like the whole board was there. Why?
Furthermore at the board meeting which I do not remember seeing you. One of the Board members that was at the rules committee meeting and who voted, was unable to attend the Board meeting since he was out of town. As I recall the vote for TC was 4 in favor, 10 against. Now you are down to 3 board members present at the Board meeting that voted at the rules committee meeting. It is quite possible no board member changed their mind (vote) from the rules meeting to the board meeting, after all there were 4 votes in favor of TC at the board meeting.
Furthermore the rules committe meeting is a place where applications for rule changes are discussed. Once discussed a vote is taken and all clubs get to have 2 votes, one from the President of the club and the other from the club Rep. all tech committee chairs get to vote along with board members. What ever the outcome of that vote, it is only a RECOMENDATION to the board.
If you started this tread because you believe what you posted above is true, God help the SCTA. You owe every board member an apology. You have really outdone yourself this time.
Regards,
Tom Gerardi
-
The plot thickens, and in current debate im spinning my tires because I have dont have traction control
Jon
-
Folks... this has been Very entertaining... I've got to take the Berkeley up to Michigan this weekend to get an engine fitted...( another long trip ).. So I'll be leaving in just a bit...
I can't wait to read what you folks have to say when I get back...
Can I recommend we focus on the subject and the process and maybe withdraw from the personal attacks on each other... Somehow that just detracts from the enjoyment of the discussion on the topic...
Jon... I thank you again for providing us this website... it's a joy to support...
-
I have no dogs in this fight, but I would think it would be more beneficial to decide who's looking at this as a safety item and who's looking at it as a classification item(whether they know it or not, some are.. read on). Once you can get people on the same page, it's much easier to see the others point of view and move forward as a whole. The idea should not be to tell the board they don't know what they are doing, it should be to get them to see everyone's perspective in a rational manner so that decisions can be made of what type of ruling is being made.
I don't think anyone is saying that it will not increase safety, I imagine the problem lies in if it will give an unfair advantage to those using it over those that are not. Maybe a seperate class(by adding a "TC" to the designator) might alleviatte the seperation? Isn't this how Streamliner classes(etc.) came to be? It was a way to go faster, safer.
Just my 2cents(which is probably worth less then that to many).
TD
-
Darn!!
My post from yesterday didn't hit the board. I had two points to make.
1) Covered by Tom's post late last night, the rules committee vote to take traction control to the board for a final vote is a recommendation only. It is not a dictate to include any rule in the book. I told this to Earl Wooden when he mentioned that he would be purchasing his TC unit immediatly.
2) The letter Jon referred to was not a SCTA or BNI publication. If he feels left out he should contact the person who generated the petition.
DW
-
Tom, for a guy who likes to quote hearsay as fact("Al Teague told...etc), and can't remember exactly who voted how, you sure are a hell of a authority on the subject. Your club must be proud to have you voting for them as you being so self righteous has seemingly given you the ability to lower the dignity of the post (?) you have annoited yourself with. Get out of the sandbox.
-
Todd in all due respect the 'unfair advantage' does not fly well. Do we outlaw Holley carbs because all you can afford is a Carter from NAPA? What about cylinder heads, Iron Eagle or Chapman 14 degree? Only a 7k difference there.
You get the point I am sure.
Special construction ought to be that. Set the safty rules, and engine and fuel size breaks and leave the rest alone..
-
Having "TC" classes is a great idea! But only for motorcycles -- so they can have a class to cover every model ever made. And then one for left-handed riders, too!
-
Originally posted by Stan Back:
Having "TC" classes is a great idea! But only for motorcycles -- so they can have a class to cover every model ever made. And then one for left-handed riders, too!
I think the bikers hide it in the seat of their pants and check it against a color chart.
Isn't it amazing how the bikers have developed suspension, ride attitide and tire management all with less horse power than anticipated.
Because of the brand dominance there is a push to additionally separate them by manufacturer. All of this with street bikes.
-
Wow this is getting intense and very entertaining. It?s rivalry week here in Utah. University of Utah vs. BYU and this is just about as heated ETC vs. No ETC. I would like to make just a few points against traction control. I think comparing this to carbs. vs. EFI or turbos vs. blowers, or high dollar aluminum heads vs. iron heads is not a valid argument. All of the innovations aforementioned enhanced the performance of the vehicle without taking away any of the control the driver has of the vehicle. I cannot think of any innovation in land speed racing history that has taken skill out of the driver?s hands. And if you don?t think it has to do with skill take a high horsepower car and put someone in it that has a lot of experience and someone with less experience and see if the times are the same. It may only be 3 or 4 miles an hour but that little bit of extra speed comes from that driver knowing how to feather the throttle, when to back out a touch and when not to bail out. As a crew chief I would be all for TC. Being able to say I blew a record away because I had tuned the TC just right. From a drivers standpoint I would rather know I broke a record because everything was just right, The car was tuned perfect, the air was good, I drove the car perfect. It took me a lot of years to learn how to get the car to hook up the best it can on a bad track, or that when it starts drifting left I can stay in the throttle and recover, but when it wants to go right I have to lift a little. I cannot however argue with the safety issue. Traction control probably would make the cars a little safer. I see both sides of this argument I?m just leaning towards the against side.
Go Utes.
Dallas
-
Dallas- Two Words. Tricia Kisner
-
I just hope that the next time a tire shreds on a streamliner or lakester from spinning the tires, that no one is hurt, and that the members who voted against TC can walk away feeling they made the right decision. I, for one, feel this is a SAFETY ISSUE first and foremost, and anyone who says that its not needs to rethink their logic. Its time to take advantage of a legitimate device on any car running over 250 mph. To hell with the way things were or have ever been. If Dale Earnhart had been using the hans device and a full face helmet, he might have a different outlook on new safety devices. I challange any board member to give me a valid reason for not allowing this or any other device proven to improve safety in this amateur sport.
-
Originally posted by Dave Dahlgren:
Todd in all due respect the 'unfair advantage' does not fly well. Do we outlaw Holley carbs because all you can afford is a Carter from NAPA? What about cylinder heads, Iron Eagle or Chapman 14 degree? Only a 7k difference there.
You get the point I am sure.
Absolutley Dave. And the "unfair advantage" is most definetly not my stance, just what I percieved as some of the other's thoughts from past posts and previous discussions in other places. I was only mentioning a way to get all involved on the same wave length(no matter what it is), should some not understand what the other people's reasonings are.
Originally posted by Dave Dahlgren:
Special construction ought to be that. Set the safty rules, and engine and fuel size breaks and leave the rest alone..
I fully agree, and MY PERSONAL OVERALL OPINION IS:
"Unlimited in design" should be just that, and there should be NO vehicle banned from running under this class designator for any reason!
Sorry that didn't come out the way I wanted it to.
TD
-
To the Trisha Kisner comment. That was very impressive 318 mph. But with Joe Law behind the wheel could that possibly have been a 325 run? To the comment of the next time a lakester or a liner shreds a tire I hope the members that voted against TC can walk away feeling they made the right decision. Hell why don't we just make the cars remote and some 10 year old sitting in a trailer with a joystick can set record after record and nobody ever gets hurt. There is a point where technology takes away from what makes this a great sport.
-
Dallas, while I respect yours and everyone elses opinions on this subject, the truth is there are unqualified drivers with rent-a-rides out there, and a lot of VERY qualified drivers with tires that shouldn't be allowed thru tech running old Firestones and Mickeys with their fingers crossed. I realize that we all take a risk when we climb into our racecars, but lets keep in mind that most of us don't have a death wish fueled by Testosterone.
-
New catagory TC vs. Deathwish. Hell I just like stirring up the pot. I'm quite sure TC is never going to be allowed on our roadster so It's kind of a mute arguement for me. But it's kind of fun to throw out thoughts and see how people react. My next thought.....TC is for whimps, old men, and little girls AR AR AR Ar Ar ar ar arrrrrr. Long live the TESTOSTERONE DEATHWISH.
With tongue in cheek,
Dallas
-
Dallas all you have to offer is conjecture.. Would have could have and should have.. lets talk real facts..
Explain this to me and I just might join your side of the argument.. That goes for anyone that is willing to do the explanation in engineering terms not what they heard or what they think they heard or as they understand it to be. Go wild use numbers as well.
If a vehicle has X amount of traction due to the coefficient of friction between the tires and the salt. lets say for arguments sake it is 1000 ftlbs is what the tires will deliver to the surface just to keep the math easy. I have an engine when geared for 300 mph will deliver 1100 ftlbs to the ground. This is exactly what the car needs to go 300 by the way. Well our illustrious driver Mario, a nice racy name for a guy driving a red car(all fast cars are red right?), is very smooth and carefully applies the power. Much to Mario's dismay at 290 mph he reaches almost full throttle in high gear and delivers 1010 ft lbs to the tires.. Uh oh remember the beginning we only have traction for 1000 ft lbs. So Mario undaunted by his problem, swears a little in Italian and bangs the steering wheel some but decides he will just drive through it cause he knows it'll hook up sooner or later. Well here is the great part you get to pick the ending, a multiple choice story, what could be better on a Thursday afternoon...
What happens next is....
A.)
Mario goes 290 tires ablaze and at the end of the run proclaims.. Mama mia she be a real handful on the top end she spina the tyres like a scalded cat but I hang on we go a 290..
B.)
Mario goes 290 tires ablaze and at the end of the run proclaims.. Mama mia she really turn up bad in the last 1/4 mile the tires now be a all shredded like a big lettuce in da slicer.. sorry guys we gotta more tyres??
C.)
Mario goes 290 tires ablaze at the 4 1/2 mark she getta little side ways from all da tyres a spininn. Mario says to himself.. Moma mia I really hate this goin around and around I think I gonna loose my linguini outa my nose. he goes through backwards at about a 290
D.)
Mario goes 290 tyres ablaze at the 4 1/2 mile mark but from outa nowhere he says to himself.. Moma mia she no more taka da power, mebe I just backa outa alittle.. At 1000 ft lbs the tires hook up and the car exits at 290...
E.)
Mario goes 290 tyres ablaze at the 4 1/2 mile mark he proclaims I dona care about this i gotta secret weapon! I gotta traction control she gonna slow down da engine and da power so no slippa no more.. He throws the hidden switch marked 'death ray' to confuse everyone he he.. She dropa da power down to 1000 ft lbs when the tyres they hook um uppa. Fearless Mario exits at 290 mph..
Now comes the best part the moral.. all good stories have a moral..
No matter what fearless Mario does all she gonna take is da 1000 ftlbs of force causa dat be all da bite she gots..
-
Dallas, Don't ever say never...I can hear in now WWHHAA-WWHHAA I can't go fast enought in my roadster I hurt a tire...I want TC! I want TC!...They got it I want it.... WWWHHHAA WWWHHHAAA..... The 4-wheel drive issue won't go away either WWHHAA WWWHHHAAA They got it - I want it..I..I..I.
PS Great write up Dave D.
-
F.) Fearless Mario using drawing from years of driving knowledge feels the car breaking loose, feathers back on the pedal puts 1000 ft lbs down on the salt and exits at 290. Mario opens a bottle of merlot and toast "Boys thatsa all shes gots...I drove her to the best of my ability" Mario sips his wine.
G)Mario goes 290 tyres ablaze at the 4 1/2 mile mark he proclaims I dona care about this i gotta secret weapon! I gotta traction control she gonna slow down da engine and da power so no slippa no more.. He throws the hidden switch marked 'death ray' to confuse everyone he he.. She dropa da power down to 1000 ft lbs when the tyres they hook um uppa. Fearless Mario exits at 290 mph. Mario opens a bottle of merlot and toast "Boys thatsa all shes gots...that computer drove her to the best of it's ability" Mario pours the glass of wine on the TC system and says atsa good driver there.
Now comes the best part the moral.. all good stories have a moral..
No matter what fearless Mario does all she gonna take is da 1000 ftlbs of force causa dat be all da bite she gots... But Fearless Mario can say I gave her all she gots.
-
H) Mario feels the slip at the 4 mile. Turns on da magic switch. Da car hooksup, Mario is quickanuff to turn it off again and sneaks out a 301 out the back door...All uguysa forgot the 25 mph tailwind...Mario spits in the devils eye again..Screw the vino and has a shot of Jack Daniels...A true American...
-
I didn't calculate the jack daniels factor. I choose H. Great call jimmy six
-
Originally posted by Dallas:
There is a point where technology takes away from what makes this a great sport.
I guess I assosiate in some cases innovation with technology. Using technology to work for you is part of innovation.
When someone comes out with a new piece of electronics I would say "That was very innovative."
Dallas is there a point when dictatorship takes away from the sport too?
I love the SCTA-BNI, and I do not want the case to come out that I am bashing. I just simply want to state my case in wanting traction control, why I am for it and still looking for a true answer as to why it is not allowed and a definition of it from the scta (Dahlgren put together a very nice example of it). and I don't think there is anything wrong with that.
Jonathan
-
I left out the more grizzly ending..
I.)
Mario goes 290 tires ablaze at the 4 1/2 mark she getta little side ways from all da tyres a spininn. Mario says to himself.. Moma mia I really hate this goin around and around I think I gonna loose my linguini outa my nose. Uh oh she losea da right rear and da rim she dug in we a goin ova.. After 6 rolls it catches on fire and Mario is toast. He is an amatuer and did the best he could but with only 2 hrs driving time in the last 5 years it is his best. His wife Maria understands Mario went out doing what he loved the best and she is real sorry about those rescue workers that got 3'd degree burns but they are still in their 50's so they will heal in a few years or so but walking might be a challage with all the pain. Then Aunt Sophia calls up all involved with running the event and proclaims.. You idiots how could you let my dear Mario do this to himself when there were ways for him to avoid dying while performing such a childish stunt. I donna care what Maria thinks, coisin Salvitor bea the big lawyer in da NYC Manahatten.. I talka to him last night and says ya betta all got to da appliance store and pika out ya favoite box cause he gonna own all ya houses and cars and by da way his address is 101 Uppa Yours just send ya paycheck there and he will forward it to me and the grand babies.. Maria she no care she just cry all day now..
Don't laugh too hard that is the way motor racing lawsuits go.
By the way every one forgot to use numbers.. another dauting task.. And Dallas how do you have so much time to be on the net with all those F1 teams calling if you get my drift..
Ok lets all get over our egos as drivers... Like I said before if anyone was that good they would be endlessly annoyed by all the messages on their answer machines to actually drive a pro car.. one that is not built in a two car garage by a bunch of guys going to teach someone how it is done..
-
Bob Drury, I am responding to your post about me. I personally don't know you, but I am sure you are an ok guy. I respect your opinions, I don't think you respect mine, and that is ok, it is your choise. If you knew me, you would know that I am a very outspoken person. I don't hold things back, I just tell them how I see them. I am not a lawyer, so if I quoted hearsay, I just told people what I heard with my own ears while at a board meeting no more no less, you can call it what you want. I do know I am more of an authority of what happened at the Board and rules committee meeting, than someone who was not present. As far as lowering the dignity of the post, if that is what you think that is your right. I don't agree. I cannot stand by idle while another person is smearing the good names of the people on the SCTA board. I never heard you speak up when this person in their posts attacked me or the SCTA board, why not? Do you just believe everything this person says is gospel? I guess that is your option. I don't feel I attacked anyone. Again my opinion. As far as my Club goes, they know I am an honest person and tells it like it is, even though it is not popular, they respect me for it. Thanks for your opinion.
Regards,
Tom Gerardi
PS. Instead of taking up band width next time you can just send me a PM.
-
Time to lock the thread.......this isn't about Traction Control anymore...
Mike M.
-
Jon, Using technology to work for you, or in the place of you?
Dave, Had to turn it into a horror show did you?
This is a great thread. This is the first topic in a long time I've even wanted to comment on. Usually the topic is something of no concern to anyone like motorcycle rules. (That shot was just to see if Jon boots me). Anyway you all have great points for and against and I am enjoying reading all your posts.
Cheers to you Jon, I am all for the inovation of this site and what it gives to the landracing community. (That was to keep me from getting booted).
Dallas
-
P.S. we could back down on the personal attacks a little. Except agains KT
-
Not a horror story more os a reality show.. Go fight with Auant shopia and see where everyone gets..
-
And Sam Wheeler goes 330+ with 60 inches.
I think I have it so far.
What was your point ?
-
There seems to be lots of discussion off list about the fact that other sanctioning bodies ban traction control, so therefore we should also. Well, I dug around and found this.
CART is Championship Auto Racing Teams and sanctions the Fedex Championship Series (ChampCar/IndyCars)
First, lets look at the 2001 CART rulebook, section 9.27.3
9.27.3. Electronically controlled or activated traction controlled devices are not allowed (re: Table 2). Any system (other than the mechanical throttling device linked directly to the driver?s foot), open or closed loop, driver activated, gear selectable, track position activated or otherwise that selectively reduces torque/power of the engine to some lower level under any circumstances is a form of traction control and is therefore illegal, except;
1. Pit lane speed limiter using either front wheel or rear wheel signal as input. Use is restricted to the CART designated pit lane area and may not be in contravention of the traction control rule stated herein,
2. Driver selected map/mixture switch use when not in contravention of the traction control rule stated herein,
3. Where torque is reduced during open throttle gear shift for less than 0.5 seconds,
4. Where manifold pressure is reduced until the manifold pressure relief valve is reseated after a blow event for less than 0.5 seconds,
5. Devices to limit the intake manifold pressure control to a level of one inch of mercury absolute below the maximum pressure permitted under 9.5.4A.1. herein.
6. Devices to limit maximum engine speed when not in contravention of the traction control rule stated herein.
Now, lets look at the 2002 CART rulebook, section 9.27.3
9.27.3. Traction control is allowed. All traction control schemes may not be in violation of any other Champ Car specification.
There reason why the rule was changed was because CART, a multi-million dollar orginization consisting of paid, full time tech employees and only 3 engine manufacturers to inspect concluded that it was virtually impossible to police.
Draw from this what you may. I have the full electronic copies of each years rulebook available is anyone questions the validity of the above passages.
Thanks,
John Romero
<small>[ November 18, 2004, 05:50 PM: Message edited by: John Romero ]</small>
-
Also, contrary to what I have heard from some people, NHRA does allow traction control in some classes, specifically the sport compact front wheel drive drag cars.
http://www.nhrasportcompact.com/2004/rules/index.html (http://www.nhrasportcompact.com/2004/rules/index.html)
Thanks,
John Romero
-
"Dirty laundry is always most effective if worn over the head. If you can't see them, they can't see you."
-
Tom, first of all, I am not, nor have I ever attacked you on this site. What I have done is chastised you (if you will) for calling out a fellow member by name, and calling him a liar amongst other things. That is why I posted it on this thread.
There is no reason to bring any personal antimosities onto this site, and for your information, I gave Ken hell on this site for comments he made about LSR tires a couple of weeks ago, so believe me, their is no colusion. The fact that we are seeing the issue from two different points of view is a healthy part of making our sport grow. We just don't need any personal animosities cluttering up the forum. I respect every thing you or anyone else says, I just don't think hearsay or inuendo should be a part of it. None of us wants this or any issue to be a us vs them deal. Lets worry about saving the salt... Regards, Bob
-
Oh, I almost forgot, lets not forget that operating this site takes time and money, so it you appreciate what Jon has created, get off your duff and send him a thank you wrapped around a check. Thanks again Jon............
-
Lets all welcome a new member from Roy Utah. Edgel Gillespie, welcome to the forum a great place to vent, ask and recieve answers learn about traction control and propsters. Sometimes it's gets a littl crazy but most of the time good stuff, even from Keith now and then. He makes fake rocks so go figure.
Glen also in Utah
-
Again--"Streamliners and Lakesters are the ultimate, UNLIMITED way of doing your thing in LSR, lets keep it that way". I will not engage in a pissing contest, and I like Mario...
-
P.S.--Remember, land speed racing is just that, Bonneville is the fastest form of motorsports in the world. Flat out, fast as you can go. If TC cuts the power, what is the reason for not having the option to use it? (board members?)
-
Again, if it?s an ?unlimited? class it should be allowed. I now understand that the Board, in its infinite wisdom, has made special construction a ?limited? class.
I would guess that all of us in the midst of this discussion on TC are all racing by the rules and would not use TC in any way shape or form because the SCTA board says we can?t, like it or not.
However there is still no way the SCTA can police this issue. They don?t have the knowledge, manpower or dollars to do it. So how does anyone know whether any of our competition isn?t already using TC illegally.
John
-
Perhaps we also need some new terms and definitions here:
SLIP CONTROL, ?electronic or mechanical devise used for reducing engine power.? Flat out impossible to detect.
TRACTION CONTROL, ?mechanical or electronic devise using the brake system to control wheel spin.? Perhaps difficult, but possible to detect.
If I understand this correctly CART, NHRA, FIA, and perhaps others, all allow at least ?Slip Control? mainly because they can?t police who is and who isn?t using it.
John
-
I questioned that also how do we know who is using traction control. And while talking with a board member, who spoke only on his personal beleif and not talking or representing the board (I will not say who it was), the answer given was, its the competitor who has to sleep with it at night. And the tally was If you can't drive the vehicle yourself, you shouldn't be in it. Also the board knows that they cannot police it, that is why the strict ruling on if caught there is a 3 year suspension. And if a person was protested the SCTA-BNI has the right to confiscate any and all electronics from the vehicle for as long as they need them. So if I were to protest a FOR EXAMPLE a Ron Main vehicle. Every piece of electronics could be taken and examined by the SCTA. And it would be simple in Mains case because he runs a Motec unit. Every feature of the motec is password blocked, if you pay for the feature they give you a password to unlock the feature. Now they could take the serial number from the box and call MOTEC and they will know if that feature has been enabled.
So my question that I have no answer for is are there Mechanical ways to have traction control, Dave Dahlgren any comments on this????
Definition is VERY MUCH needed for Traction Control.
Jonathan
-
OK Jon, the MOTEC deal is one possible scenario if one wasn?t trying to hide the TC. But it doesn?t have to be in the EFI ?puter. I could be in any one of a half dozen different components. And even if SCTA confiscated all the electronics (which would be a royal pain) they couldn?t find the offending device. If NASCAR can?t find ?em, with all their recourses, how is the poor SCTA going to do it? They have a strict suspension policy, yes, but the chances of anyone getting punished here is rather remote.
We agree that there needs to be a better definition of traction control and slip control.
John
-
How about a compromise. We all need to look at gauges occasionally while racing right? That is why we have a tach, water, oil, boost gauge etc. So if a gauge, light, buzzer, etc. could be made that was non computor controlled, (independent unit completely no computor hookups allowed) that gave the "driver" an indication that the drive wheels were slipping, would this satisfy what everyone is looking for? This would still leave it up to the "driver" to make a decision on what to do. This would also fill the need for those of you who feel this is a safety issue. This could be allowed in all classes.
Regards,
Tom Gerardi
-
It was nice to see Richard Thomason from Danny Boy post his opinion on T.C. I realize that we have about beat this subject to death, but it sure would be interesting to have a poll taken of all drivers who have gone over 250 mph in any type of LSR vehicle just to get a true idea what their consenses would be. If nothing else, it would give real validity to the value of this site. Besides, it would just be nice to visit with Al, Earl, Joe Law, Chauvin Emmons and all my other heros. Maybe they could enlighten the rest of us on how to stay pointed at Floating Mountain............Bob
-
problem is with the Motec the traction control is standard with advanced tuning which also allows logging data among other things. it is stadard in many other ECUs so your secnario will not work. It is not a special thing to them it is something that is a part of a package of features. Some ok and some a problem for LSR racing.. it takes about 3 seconds to toggle it off and on.. you could do it while downloading the data from the run is anbout 3 or 4 seconds and 3 keystrokes so how would you know same goes for others. Like the man said you have to wake up in the morning and look in the mirror and see if you are happy with what you see.
Dave
-
I will ad this makes the Salem witch hunt look preety tame in the big picture of things.. same set of obsticles all a moral decisiom made by people wanting to do the right thing but not able to acknowledge what is possile and what is not.. Same scary set of penalties as well. While death is a big issue for the witch 3 years may be longer than the time left for an older driver to still have a good chance at a record. Over reacting at it's best..
-
Originally posted by JonAmo:
And the tally was If you can't drive the vehicle yourself, you shouldn't be in it.
Funny, that's roughly the same thing the Harley guys said about the 1965 panhead when it came out with auto advance ignition rather then manual advance on the handlebars Jon. Auto advance sure made it safer, and possibly made it faster. Is there a diference here?
TD
-
Though I have previously visited this site, have just registered. Thanks, Jon, for your work. The TC control issue clearly is a difficult one that has raised some tempers it seems. Though it has been raised, the issue is not really of safety, it is of speed. In my other sport- swimming- stroke mechanics and turns occasionally push the limits of "legal", causing confusion among judges and competitors and unfortunate disqualifications. When it got so the judges couldn't tell if a turn was legal, and it gave an advantage, they changed the rule. Everybody could do it and no interpretation issues.
As has been pointed out, it is impossible to police TC, in any of the iterations outlined here. Since most of it really requires computer control, I say make it legal in any class that allows computers. All the pro circuits have got big money involved which promotes finding "unfair advantages." Speed is our "big money". Remove the temtation. Let everybody who wants to, use it.
-
I haven't seen any discussion of the Traction Control Issue with regard to "Course Damage".
While at Bonneville, this is a lesser concern, however at El Mirage course damage is very evident. I would think Traction Control would reduce the amount of damage that occurs to the surface of the Lakebed by the high horsepower cars. Some leave a dual trench down the course that the rest of us have to avoid for the rest of the meet.
-
TD exactly!!!
all electronic ignition/rev limiters "should" be outlawed
see a "good" driver should be able to identify
when engine overspeed is too much, and manually
slow the engine down to an acceptable level.....
automatic ignition advance, retard and rev limiting takes the
"driving" and "tuning" out of the hands of the driver, and it becomes who is the better ignition
programmer....
cuz when desired rate of engine speed (rpm) increase becomes too great ie during wheel slip,
the automatic rev limiter slows the engine until
the desired rpm/rpm rate is achieved
and dont use the "safety" guise either, some say
rev limiters prevent blown engines, flying shrapnel, fires, a "good" driver knows how to
control engine speed manually.....
if your scared/not capable of controlling your engine speed
perhaps you shouldnt be driving :)
Joe :)
<small>[ November 22, 2004, 01:07 PM: Message edited by: Joe Amo ]</small>
-
Mike,
Nice thinking thats good, also for bike guys its the same issue at Bonneville, just ask any of them how they avoid the "ruts" long course guys make and the bike guys avoid them like the plaque.
Jon
-
rutting was the reason we don't let alum drive wheels and in some cases front alum wheels. Costello always brings the rubber as well just in case of a soft course.
-
Jon-you asked me to comment on why I was in favor of traction control. Well here goes. I think that we can go faster and it is safer. Let me give you some of my thinking. In the late 90's at a World Finals meet, we found some real inconsistencies between what we thought we were running and what we actually ran . There is a miracle product that will repair tires and prevent leaks. We all know the problems of MT tires as far as holding proper pressure. We have used this product for many years to repair and to coat sidewalls. Either Ed or I got the brilliant idea to coat the whole tire. Unfortunately, it seemed to reduce the CF by at least 40% Needless to say, our indicated speed was similarily reduced. I don't think that traction control would have benifited us with this setup, but it certainly gave me a firm idea as to how important traction is. Tom Burkland has seen many times diffences between indicated and actual speeds. The point is that there can be significant wheel spin at speeds well in excess of 300. I'm not sure that is a real good idea or that even Micheal Schumacher could detect that, let alone a 50+ year old land speed racer with 30+ years of experience. My personel idea has been to limit the rate of increase of rpm vs time. I'm not sure that anyone could detect that, but sofar we have not built that into our system.
The detection of a system like this may be beyond anyone's capabilities. On an entirely differant subject, somewhere on these posts, I read that tying two motors together electronically could fall afoul of the TC rule. I have on the drawing board, a two engined car that would be tied together electronically for front and rear drive. Does this rule mean that this would not be allowed? Seems like that is really a big constraint to innovation and unlimited ideas.
rht
-
Quoting rt
"On an entirely different subject, somewhere on these posts, I read that tying two motors together electronically could fall afoul of the TC rule."
Apply that principle to a tow rig for an orchard sprayer and take over the valley. You may also be able to over run the grape growers and control the winerys. NOW THERE YOU HAVE SOMETHING. Your drivers wouldn't be required to use wrist restraints or drivers licenses.
GO FOR IT Brewster.
-
One last post on this subject-what ever we do-PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE don't make a separate class. Good grief we have way too many classes already. That is unless we have a class for the fastest Blue, Front-Wheel Drive, Chev powered small block engined, with a Champ quick change sponsored by apples.
Ha! Just kidding.
rht
-
Glenn-you definately have the right idea. By the way, if I do run over the grape growers, can we share the wine?
rht
-
As long as Ed acts only in security. Can you imagine how the shares would lose their balance if he was the controller?
It would be a real sight to see you pulling onto the salt with 40 cases of wine instead of 40 boxes of apples.
FREUD
-
Richard has the right idea as does Mike for other reasons to make it legal.
Why tear the course up if you don't need to?
Why tear the tires up if you don't need to?
Why pretend we are a bunch of pro drivers when we are not? If we were why are there ruts at El Mirage?
Why infer cars are unlimited when they are not?
Why pretend you can police something when you can't?
The electronic genie is out of the bottle.. get over it. If you eliminate wheel speed sensors all you eliminate is the people collecting data. If some one wanted to hide traction control that would be a stupid place to put it in the first place. Almost every electronic engine control has a way to limit power due to slip. It is usually free or very low cost, under $300 to turn it on. In most cases it can be told to monitor slip and turn a light on, data log it or do something about it or all of the above. You can also have a slew rate rev limiter that controls how fast an engine can accelerate as well with no wheel speed sensors. If my engine is not responsive enough to suit you will I have to go back and work on the tune up because I failed an accel test because the engine was a little fat or the timing backed off for a tuneup pass? One of the real issues is it is impossible to regulate what you can not see feel or measure. Engine size, fuel, body design these are all tangible, electronics and computer code is all ether. You can't see it and what you can see is only the part you are allowed to see. If a virus can get into your computer without your permission do you think you will be able to find 10 lines of illegal code in a computer that no one knows what should be there nor will get rights from the manufacturer to see it.. It is a trade secret they won't let you see it period.
Even more interesting is allowing anything goes in a production car. Does everyone realize most of the factory ECU's have been hacked so they can be reprogrammed to anything you want with traction control and in some cases all wheel drive? Even more to the point there are companies that make replacements that just slip into the factory case and have full programing capibilities. How do you police that? Are we going to have someone check the micro code to see if it is OEM or not or is SCTA willing to provide a certifed ECU for all the production cars in all the models and combinations of engine and transmissions and then take responsibility if there is engine damage?
Another interesting question is If I used the entire drive train from a Audi all wheel drive complete with engine , gear boxes and controllers is it legal in all classes? If so I may have just become a big Audi fan LOL..
Even if it got down to points and a carb on every car you still can't police it. The parts are too small and too hard to find.
As in all conversations that become circular in nature in that they end up at the beginning after all options are discussed,
What is the definition of TC?? and how would you know when it is getting obvious very few have a handle on the technology and how it is implented.
A 3 year penalty for something that is unmeasuareable, impossible to detect, almost impossible to define and could be called on a whim as simple as "I don't thnk that car can go that fast and I think I heard a engine miss or rev limter at the 4 must be running it, throw them out' is a pretty scary scenario. God only knows I have heard enough cars and bikes skip at Bonneville, almost often enough to make it a tradition.
Here is a perfect example of what might happen.
Keith Turks car with Ted Wenz driving ran a 265 on a 220 something record at WOS in C/FMS with a very old ECU built before traction control was even a player in the aftermarket game, it was built it the eighties and purchased for the ungodly sum of $300.00 complete with harness, basiacally an old piece of junk no one wanted and about the same vintage of what is in Seth Hammond's car if what I understand from Mike is correct. It's not a bad piece but basic would be the correct word to describe it. Even more interesting is it had an indicated speed of 270 with 2% slip and 1400 lbs of downforce when it nosed over with a hurt engine. What makes this most interesting is it is faster than any other Modified Sports Car records and completely legal, we worked our combined a$$e$ off to make that happen and still hurt the engine so we were taking no prisioners so to speak. We had 2 days to do it with all the schedules involved so we opted incorrectly for the banzi get it done run and chose poorly.
If this were to be reviewed under current rules it might be incorrecly construed as traction control got it done when it was just a good car good driver and all out run at it.
How do you correctly police that?
The moral and emotional cost is too high for an arbritary ruling there... With an ambigious rule rule with no clear definition.. At least one that is not all encompasing and not impossible to enforce.
Interesting and on point responses are always welcome to me personally as well as here.
ddahlgren@snet.net
-
Goofed on last sentence should read..
"At least one that is not all encompasing and impossible to enforce."
-
If multiple engines connected electronically are illegal and considered tc, then connecting multiple engines mechanically would also be tc because you are limiting wheel spin on either front or rear wheels.
Joe Law
-
To clear a few things up on our Traction Control issue, and after a very constructive conversation with our president of the board, it was brought to my attention that a 14-1 vote in the rules committee in favor of TC, was in effect a vote to "take the ISSUE of TC to the board". There were two board members on the rules committee who,when voting, were just voting to take the issue to the board, not voting for or against the issue. It was assumed by many of us that a vote for it in the rules committee was a vote in favor of the issue. We were wrong. It ment only to take it(TC) to the board. Due to this misunderstanding on my part(and many others) I do owe the SCTA board an apology. I am not into "board bashing", just trying to get some board input with a little needle. I have been known to "disagree" with them from time to time, and thought maybe they could join in the discussion. The board really does a pretty good job of running the whole operation. The whole thing just got out of "control".(no pun intended). On the basic issue of TC, I am very much in favor of it because of the fantastic amount of positive input we've had on the subject, ie: can't see it, can't detect it, can't really define it, and cannot police it. Again, I offer my apology publically, here on this site to the SCTA board for not fully understanding the way board members, serving on the rules committee could vote in favor(not for the issue, but only to take the issue to the board) and then vote against TC at the board meeting.
Sincerely, Ken Walkey
-
Thanks Ken, airing all this out definately
has a silver lining, it is NEEDED discourse
good stuff
still hoping for improved language utilized in the rule book about definition of TC
I mean if I want my "rev limiter" to minimize
excessive acceleration of my "engine", is this
legal???????
Joe :)
Joe :)
-
Ken... I'm always impressed when someone says they were wrong, fixs the problem and apologizes...
Thats what men do...
Thank you for clearing that up... I was a bit lost in how the process went on...