Landracing Forum
Bonneville Salt Flats Discussion => SCTA Rule Questions => Topic started by: KEVIN on October 20, 2010, 09:43:33 PM
-
Has anyone heard about the new rule changes for replacing all stock glass in vehicles with lexan? My main question is it going to include the replacement of the stock laminated safety glass windshields? This new rule will also be inclusive of all production vehicles.
-
It was my understanding that the Lexan rule might be rewritten for clarity - the wording was a bit confusing.
Are you saying that Lexan will be required, and that the film option is going away?
-
I don't see how they can get away with this? Are they trying to reduce the amount of participants by making them spend so much money that they cannot afford to race anymore? Someone tell me this rule is bogus. :evil:
-
John,
Ask your club. The rule change proposals come from the participants. We don't make this stuff up as you seem to think.
DW
-
Dan, Your taking all the fun out and throwing all the conspiracy theories out the window. :-o Tony
-
Some people think these changes rain down from the black heliocopters like so many pieces of paper.
I am not protecting any of my coupe records, don't have the one anymore.
DW
-
I haven't seen the written rule, first time I have heard about it. Is the proposal including all windows? If so how do you get a replacement for a rear decklid window?
Troy Langlo, not John. No black heli coming from me, just an observation of reality.
p.s. Where can I go to read this change?
-
What about us BNI only members? where's our voice?
-
guys can spend big money on engines so they can put lexan windows there cars too, if you have never picked up glass on the salt you dont understand the new rule. picking up Glass takes so long, first its hard to see and it holds the meet up too Iam all for the new rule. LSR Mike our voice is (come help pick up glass on the long course)
-
guys can spend big money on engines so they can put lexan windows there cars too, if you have never picked up glass on the salt you dont understand the new rule.
picking up glass does suck, that's why the tint rule came in effect. How do you replace a rear decklid window with lexan?
-
Troy, your back window should be available from some of the oval track suppliers such as Five Star Bodies. I don't really know who's in business these days as I haven't been working with those cars for some time.
Pete
-
Dan,
Please don't take any of these posts as personal. You've allowed yourself to be a sounding board for the SCTA by posting on this forum and it's appreciated by many. As a outsider I really appreciate what the volunteers do to allow us to participate in LSR. but in any large organisation there are some that will try to manipulate the rules for there own needs. Not that this subject is a result of that.
Truth of the matter is that the changes being made are not for the the cash deprived and that has been stated on this forum by a few that we should get out if we can't afford it. That's where some of us are now. No bitch just fact.
I'm still working on the car to make it competitive but chances are it won't run again.
Again, Appreciate all your work for the SCTA.
Harvey
-
If there are companies out there that make molded windows for all vehicles affected, then the rule won't be as bad. But if people can't get molded lexan window for their cars then this is a big problem. How many cars broke windows on the salt this year?
-
Perhaps a little more research on available film before a blanket rule of lexan only. We know from experience that tint film will not hold tempered glass after it shatters but 3M and others make the clear bra film (used on front of motorhomes) which I believe will. I use it on my headlights. Just an idea from a BNI only member :wink:
-
I guess some windows would be hard to replicate. On my Vega I just took the old windshield to a plastic place and they cut a piece of Lexan pretty much from that. And threw my old, cracked windshield in the dumpster. Then I went home and filed and sanded it to fit. Then started putting in screws from the center out and it curved right around as I bolted it down. The hatch back on the Vega will be easy if I have to replace it and the side windows are flat.
-
Instead of everybody replacing their windows with Lexon, how about a couple of shop vacs on the rescue trailer.
I would like to see this proposed rule [ I hope it's not final] in writing.
I believe we can find replacement windows for the camaro but there are a lot of cars that might not.
Has SCTA takin this into consideration?
JL222
-
guys can spend big money on engines so they can put lexan windows there cars too, if you have never picked up glass on the salt you dont understand the new rule. picking up Glass takes so long, first its hard to see and it holds the meet up too Iam all for the new rule. LSR Mike our voice is (come help pick up glass on the long course)
Were's that roadster [no windows] at, you seem to have lots of [big money] so whats the hold up.
JL222
P.S. buy a vacuum
-
Dan, Your taking all the fun out and throwing all the conspiracy theories out the window. :-o Tony
Speaking of conspiracy theories, google Oklahoma City Bombing, and read how the FBI has never finger printed
McVeigh's getaway car [ reason given, it cost to much] also several survailance tapes from business across street
and around town are under lock and key and never seen by McVeigh's defense, or by anyone else.
JL222
-
. . . I believe we can find replacement windows for the camaro but there are a lot of cars that might not.
Google 'Lexan windshield'
One of many hits will be = http://www.vfnfiberglass.com/Lexan%20Windows.htm or see post by RichFox above. This isn't rocket science . . .
-
John,
Do you actually think your last post has any comparison to LSR?
If you want visability to rules and input become involved. I was able to see all of the proposals sent in thru the process and not one of them came from you. I saw no opposition to the head and neck restraint mandate from you either. You have been very vocal with your opinion.
Here's an idea - after the proposals are compiled and made ready for presentation to the rules committee meetings we instead send them all out to the general public for discussion. When you decide that the Internet has had its fair share of time to disect the proposals we can set a meeting date.
Then the reworked rules can be sent to the Internet again for final discussion. When that is done the board can vote and the rulebook can go forward. Until that time no racing will be scheduled for the lack of an updated rulebook.
Let me know when the rules are ready for print.
DW
-
Dan...I'm pretty sure that I made a proposel on the Hans type systems last year, suggesting that instead of
mandating the system that the SCTA for saftey reasons highly recommend Hans type devices.
I was more involved as a rep for the Speedsters [ Broccoli pickers] when I lived in Santa Barbara and use to go to the rep meetings in Anaheim a 3 HR + drive oneway, sometimes not getting home to 3am.
Now living in Clovis its even further and hard to find out what happend at the meetings.
As far as this Lexon window requirement when was this decided and what is the wording.
I also feel that vacuum cleaners would be a fast way to pick up glass and save racers a lot of money and what happens if a racer cant't find a replacement window?
JL222
Maybe the thread should be SCTA rules.
-
I don't think anything has been decided -- only proposed.
-
Stan is correct. Manghelli has the pile of rule change PROPOSALS and is compling the requests into something coherent.
The list I saw had at least three people with the same window idea. Two are participants and one is a chief inspector. So, you can see that all the requests are not made by board members protecting records.
John, if you have a copy of last year's proposal maybe you can forward it. It will save Mike a lot of time he would have to take away from 2011 in order to search for it.
Thanks,
DW
-
they have two vacuums in the trailer they dont work for picking up glass. The biggest thing is its hard to see on white salt and it go's every were . Troy looks like you will have to get a Hans Device and lexan windows . :-P
-
Stan is correct. Manghelli has the pile of rule change PROPOSALS and is compling the requests into something coherent.
The list I saw had at least three people with the same window idea. Two are participants and one is a chief inspector. So, you can see that all the requests are not made by board members protecting records.
John, if you have a copy of last year's proposal maybe you can forward it. It will save Mike a lot of time he would have to take away from 2011 in order to search for it.
Thanks,
DW
Dan... I don't know if I have a copy but I was over the deadline and Mike did e-mail me a reply saying he would still bring it up
Would I have a copy from the post? I will see if I still have the E-mail
Thanks JL222
-
When I submitted a rule change for next year, SCTA sent me a confirmation email.
Tom G.
-
What about us BNI only members? where's our voice?
Mike,
I thought you were a member in good standings in both the Sidewinders and Gear Grinders Clubs. So you have a voice.
Tom G.
-
they have two vacuums in the trailer they dont work for picking up glass. The biggest thing is its hard to see on white salt and it go's every were . Troy looks like you will have to get a Hans Device and lexan windows . :-P
Sounds like you need a bigger vacuum. :cheers:
when we broke our window in 08 most of the glass was contained in the one sided tint. We put the window in the back of the truck and used a shop vac to clean the pieces up when we got home. :cheers:
btw: mike when do we get to see your roadster?
-
When I submitted a rule change for next year, SCTA sent me a confirmation email.
Tom G.
I can't believe it :-o I found the confirmation and will send it to Dan :-D
JL222
-
Troy the roadster may be at the SEMA show, but at Elmo in May if everything gos to plan.
-
I have sent John's request from last year on to Mike Manghelli for inclusion on this year's agenda.
Thank you, John
I also recieved some info from desotoman and 4-barrel mike that I needed. Thanks to both of you.
DW
-
I also feel that vacuum cleaners would be a fast way to pick up glass and save racers a lot of money and what happens if a racer cant't find a replacement window?
JL222
I didn't even think about buying a replacement window. Never occurred to me that such a thing would be out there. I cut my own windows for the '32. So I cut my own window for the Vega. If the racer can't find a replacement window he makes one. Question answered.
-
[/quote] I didn't even think about buying a replacement window. Never occurred to me that such a thing would be out there. I cut my own windows for the '32. So I cut my own window for the Vega. If the racer can't find a replacement window he makes one. Question answered.
[/quote]
A vega window is fairly flat a square, some decklid windows like ours is curved down all the way to the weather stripping with no side support. Would be difficult to shape or reproduce ourselves. There is no comparison and would affect our aero tremendously. :cheers:
-
When I was working at the Airline we used Lexan a lot. I have seen it bent in a sheet metal brake without heat. Stuff is pretty forgiving. I only know from my experience. Your results may vary.
-
When I was working at the Airline we used Lexan a lot. I have seen it bent in a sheet metal brake without heat. Stuff is pretty forgiving. I only know from my experience. Your results may vary.
Yea right no problem, not for us except for about $1100 or $1200 if you buy the door clips to keep the side windows on at speed. Looks like they make everything for Camaros.
Anybody see that video of the Lexon rear window coming off a Camaro?
I wonder how good those rear window would be at sealing out dust at El Mirage?
Lets hope that the rule committee does't rush into this without some reasearch on fabrication and avallability.
JL222
It's also no problem spending someone else's money
-
I guess I'm fortunate in that the windows on the Midget are essentially flat - for me, it's doable, but certainly not desirable, and I suspect it could be less safe than safety glass.
On a production car with no frame or channel on the top or back of the side windows, I could easily see where Lexan would flex out at speed - it's just not as rigid as safety glass. That in itself could cause a safety problem - it could actually compromise the drivers operating environment. One could forsee a situation where the window might be sucked out far enough on the back edge or the top to pull it out of the top of the front channel, moving it farther into the windstream and creating a cockpit hazard.
I'm certain there are a lot of other cars - primarily production cars - on which the door window frame design would be incompatible with a more flexible replacement.
I'll do what I can to to make it legal, but if doing so actually makes my car less safe, then I'm going to have to rethink as to whether or not I'm willing to race. It would be unwise to make a safety modification to a car that could, in fact, make it less safe.
-
MM, nicely said. I agree completely. :cheers:
-
These guys make all kinds of lexan replacement windows, front, rear, and side. Even for Camaro's.
Tom G.
http://www.proglasswindows.com/
-
Troy, GM and others made lexan windows for the Camaro for use in IMSA and Trans-Am, and there is lots of this stuff around for cheap. Try Jim Derhaag at http://derhaag.com he has some of the older Camaro parts. The windows are on the bottom of this page http://derhaag.com/store-accessories.htm If he doesn’t let me know and I will ask up at the track, there always someone with that stuff lying around. There is no need to pay top dollar in this economy. Tony
-
Tony thanks, we will have to call and see if they older models.
Tom, where can I find chevy parts?
Thanks for the links guys.
-
Troy,
From ProGlass website:
Tom G.
Let’s say you are looking for windows for your 1968 Camaro, well, you have come to the right place. Here at Pro Glass we sell that kit along with MANY others.
PS. I think Harwood sells them also.
-
Tom, thanks for the link. But availability isn't the only issue.
I'm seeing in this link pictures of rear and none-opening quarter windows, and side windows that are framed and/or inserted in channels which hold the Lexan around the entire perimeter, but nothing in the way of a frameless side window that's only supported on the bottom and runs in a channel on the front. That's not an uncommon arrangement.
Would the unframed and unsupported edges be ridged enough to prevent it from pulling out from the car at speed? I can say that the safety glass on my MGB doesn't, but Lexan? I think it's too flexible to be used unframed, and would likely start to flap back and forth at speed.
I'm not knocking Lexan. But the very property which makes it easy to work with, its flexibility, in certain production cars, could make it uniquely unsafe when used in side windows. I just don't think it's stiff enough.
-
Chris,
The rules require front and rear window clips at a certain speed level. Nothing, I repeat, nothing prevents a person from adding clips to the side windows. If a builder thinks there may be a problem they can come up with a solution. If it were me, I wouldn't wait for the rulebook to tell me at what speed I must add clips.
DW
-
Chris,
The rules require front and rear window clips at a certain speed level. Nothing, I repeat, nothing prevents a person from adding clips to the side windows. If a builder thinks there may be a problem they can come up with a solution. If it were me, I wouldn't wait for the rulebook to tell me at what speed I must add clips.
DW
Clips - absolutely, where they can be made to work. My concern is production based hardtops, where the door windows can't be clipped on the top and back. I still think that there's too much flexibility in Lexan to make that type of application safe.
I would like to see the new rule before I tear my doors apart. Any word as to when this might be finalized?
Dan, thanks for chiming in on this one. It was a pleasure finally meeting you in September.
Chris
-
Chris,
The rules require front and rear window clips at a certain speed level. Nothing, I repeat, nothing prevents a person from adding clips to the side windows. If a builder thinks there may be a problem they can come up with a solution. If it were me, I wouldn't wait for the rulebook to tell me at what speed I must add clips.
DW
Clips - absolutely, where they can be made to work. My concern is production based hardtops, where the door windows can't be clipped on the top and back. I still think that there's too much flexibility in Lexan to make that type of application safe.
I would like to see the new rule before I tear my doors apart. Any word as to when this might be finalized?
Dan, thanks for chiming in on this one. It was a pleasure finally meeting you in September.
Chris
Just a thought, don't NHRA Pro Stockers use lexan side windows? Yes I know the answer but it might answer your question.
As a side note I've been involved in severial cars that had windows that pushed away from the cockpit at high speeds (235 mph for a '68 vette & 250 mph for a genIII firebird) the issue is the drivers compartment is higher pressure than the air passing over the window (low pressure) thus "pulling" the window out of its track. We built tabs to hold the windows in.
Bottom line is the same can be done with lexan. 'cause I can tell you the people in line sure do seem to get restless when the course is down to clean up window glass for over an hour.
JMO
-
I also feel that vacuum cleaners would be a fast way to pick up glass and save racers a lot of money and what happens if a racer cant't find a replacement window?
JL222
I didn't even think about buying a replacement window. Never occurred to me that such a thing would be out there. I cut my own windows for the '32. So I cut my own window for the Vega. If the racer can't find a replacement window he makes one. Question answered.
Gee Rich if Lexon is so easy to bend and make compound curves why would any one bother to make fiberglass molds for streamliners or anything else? Wow, thanks problem solved just use Lexon :roll:
Good luck making a rear window for those old Buicks.
JL222
-
What about the option of using a specified thickness safety film like Laminex instead of just window tint??
-
I wouldn't want to make a windshield for a '58 Plymouth either. But if you can't buy a replacement window I don't see any other way than making a replacement window. I guess you could take up knitting. In the case of a rear window, I don't see why you couldn't use tin or fiberglass to replicate the contor of the stock window. I never parallel park my car. Why do I have to see out the back window? Have to check with the board on this one.
-
From Pro Rally cars a picture of a framless Lexan window with subframe.
(http://inlinethumb23.webshots.com/46294/2541065960049688093S600x600Q85.jpg) (http://good-times.webshots.com/photo/2541065960049688093pEcYmh)
Metal subframe attached to door body.
Nick
-
"...but 3M and others make the clear bra film (used on front of motorhomes) which I believe will."
Brian,
I know you are in the RV repair business. Can you find the product id for us? Something like this may be available from McMaster Carr.
DW
-
3M scotchgaurd paint protectant film available up to 24" so you would have to do large glass in sections. you can get it through auto paint suppliers. I have a test video on my facebook page since I couldn't get it to upload here or on youtube. If you don't want to be my friend maybe Dan could share it on his FB page. :wink:
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1287193347
Finally got it to load on youtube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8b3ybOqh5I
-
OK, Brian I took care of the FB deal - we're friends.
Thanks for the tape info.
DW
-
Dan,
Is this the product that you are referring to? I believe it is what we have on our headlights.
Doug
http://www.clearmask.com/aerogard.php
-
"...but 3M and others make the clear bra film (used on front of motorhomes) which I believe will."
Brian,
I know you are in the RV repair business. Can you find the product id for us? Something like this may be available from McMaster Carr.
DW
Again Laminex
-
Doug,
Several of those products look like they would be superior to standard window tint.
Lets see what can get pushed through at the meeting.
DW
-
I think if you were to apply it to both sides you would get almost 100% containment.
-
At World of Speed we picked up about a trillion (I don't want to over exagerate :roll:) pieces of glass from one wayward window. All I can say about the blue stuff is it was easy to see to pick up. None of it was stuck to the glass. Wayno
-
What about the option of using a specified thickness safety film like Laminex instead of just window tint??
BINGO. IMO we had a good rule on our hands but we let it be poorly executed. Window tint and packaging tape is NOT safety film.
-
packaging tape is NOT safety film.
If someone used packaging tape and crashed putting glass all over the track, and I was next to run and as a result took out one of my $800 tires, and maybe my car, I would be pissed, and that is putting it mildly.
If you cannot afford to race, park it.
Tom G.
-
packaging tape is NOT safety film.
If someone used packaging tape and crashed putting glass all over the track, and I was next to run and as a result took out one of my $800 tires, and maybe my car, I would be pissed, and that is putting it mildly.
If you cannot afford to race, park it.
Tom G.
Been there done that.
JL222
-
I'm sure that a lot of you low budget guys are going over 250, and blowing your windows out. Stop racing and get a Salt Fever pill for the cure.
Steve
-
What about us BNI only members? where's our voice?
Now that I know who attends and THINK about It. BNI Members are pretty well represented.
• Rules Committee Coordinator (appointed by SCTA board)
• The Chair of each Category committee or his designee
• 1 Representative from each SCTA Club
• 2 SCTA Board members
• 1 USFRA Representative
• Car Technical Chair
• Motorcycle Technical Chair
I'll bet even the USFRA Representative is a BNI Member.
I apologize for my off the cuff remarks.
-
USFRA sends two reps to the party. ECTA gets the proposed changes and are welcome to voice input.
DW
-
Has anyone heard about the new rule changes for replacing all stock glass in vehicles with lexan? My main question is it going to include the replacement of the stock laminated safety glass windshields? This new rule will also be inclusive of all production vehicles.
When I spoke with Pat Riley about this, he said he hadn't heard about it. There is a board meeting this weekend, and he said he would check and let me know. He was getting a couple of other clarifications for me, in writing, anyway.
-
Any body heard the out come of the rule change committee today??
-
Sometimes it takes all day.
Tom G.
-
They still have beer
-
They still have beer
WHHHHAAAT? They DRINK? :-o
No WONDER the rule book reads like a cross between the Magna Carta, the Rosetta Stone, the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Kama Sutra.*
:cheers:
*More pictures, please. :-)
-
Come on somebody, tell us the news. Good, bad or indifferent :roll:
-
Fred,
For general information, what ever happened at the meeting is only part of the process. It has to be presented to the board and then the board votes on it. So all I am saying is the process is not over.
Tom G.
-
Fred,
For general information, what ever happened at the meeting is only part of the process. It has to be presented to the board and then the board votes on it. So all I am saying is the process is not over.
Tom G.
Yea Tom I forgot that part, I was at a rep meeting when the new rules were presented to the board, one of them was to[ limit rear spoilers to not overhang the rear of the car ] this was not approved by the board. PHEW
JL222
-
Thanks Tom, I thought it was done. :-P The suspense is killing me!!
-
No WONDER the rule book reads like a cross between the Magna Carta, the Rosetta Stone, the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Kama Sutra.*
Kama Sutra?? :-o Hummm . . . I think I missed that part of the rule book. Probably in the Motorcycle rules . . .
-
Isn't that the yearly rule changes, where someone gets screwed in a really exotic manner??? :mrgreen:
Mike
-
Good one, Mike.
-
Mike, that was good! :-D
I spoke with Pat Riley, about yesterday's meeting. He told me the window options were Lexon or a similar material, full safety glass, or film . He said they were looking at the 3m, and maybe others.
-
What you didn't write here or Pat did not tell you is that NO suggestions for window changes will be going to the board as a result of the meeting held on Sat.
DW
-
What happened on the Roadster Classes? Anything significant or politics as usual. LOL.
Tom G.
-
No spoiler on F/G roadsters, no aero devices disguised as gussets, on REMR 35% of the original car must remain uncovered by any so called parachute packs or head rest fairings.
As stated before, the final vote for the suggestions is up to the board of directors at either the 11/19 or early Dec. meeting.
DW
-
Thanks Dan, I was hoping for some bigger changes in the REMR Class. Oh well I will start writing for next years rule changes now. LOL. This time I will be specific instead of suggesting it go to the Roadster committee for review.
Thanks,
Tom G.
-
Tom,
When you put a form in it goes to the relative committee. Your suggestion offered a brief comedic moment, please be more specific in the future.
DW
-
What you didn't write here or Pat did not tell you is that NO suggestions for window changes will be going to the board as a result of the meeting held on Sat.
DW
Nope, I didn't know that. Just posted what little I did know.
-
One of my friends who was there said electric fuel pump inertia switches will be mandatory (oh well I got away with an oil preesure switch for one year) I did a search on them on the site but never found a current rating for the Ford unit....Did any get one and not put in down or did I just miss it.....Thanks....JD
-
JD dont run the fuel pump through the I S.... I use the I S to trip a bosch style relay, that way i can run 30 amps without burning up the I S
-
One of my friends who was there said electric fuel pump inertia switches will be mandatory (oh well I got away with an oil preesure switch for one year) I did a search on them on the site but never found a current rating for the Ford unit....Did any get one and not put in down or did I just miss it.....Thanks....JD
JD -
I just looked at mine - Early '90's Ford. I see no rating on it, but the factory pigtail has 16 awg wire for the through. Probably safe to 15 amps - maybe more (?) :roll:
Glad this discussion went in this direction - I'm thinking a relay might be in order on mine, too.
-
The fuel pump I run has a 7.5 amp fuse and the question to the manufacturer responded with an answer to the normal current flow is 5 amps.(makes perfect sense) I have found an aftermarket inertia switch with a current capacity of 10 amps. I am a power plant electrician by trade with 40 years experience with relays BUT I don't want to add another electric thing to go wrong especially in a salt envionment. I naturally thought of a relay first but want to eliminate if I can.
I seriously thought of putting a small Crower pump I have on my oil pump and using it with a return type regulator and a bypass but I have had trouble with that type before.
-
I have a question regarding the proposed rule change, submitted DW, to allow aftermarket front ends in gas coupe (fiberglass ?). It seems to me there should be no confusion as to what is and is not allowed. Section 5.D.3 Gas Coupe is clear - all body panel must be in the stock location and of the same year as the body. Section 5.D.2 Altered Coupe is also clear. Aftermarket front ends are allowed as long as the item conforms to the class guidelines.
If clarification is necessary it may help to add to the gas coupe section, pg. 67, paragraph 6 . NOTE: Any narrowing or fairing of bumpers into the body - or use of after market body panels - will result in the car being placed in Altered class.
This is my 2 cents - Any thoughts?
-
That one was withdrawn after some discussion.
DW
-
Thanks for the reply. Any other info regarding what did and didn't make the cut?
-
Nope, final vote at board meeting.
DW
-
Thanks for the reply. Any other info regarding what did and didn't make the cut?
Nope, final vote at board meeting.
DW
I'm not touching a wrench until then. :-D
-
I had to make a decision on replacing my cracked glass windshield. My first thought was Lexan would be safer. But is it? What happens if you have a front engine fire at 200 mph? Will Lexan survive a 200 mph blast from a 2,000 degree fire for 30 seconds to a minute? It won’t fracture but how long will it take to melt a hole through it and expose the driver to that torrent of fire! What is the safest decision for the driver? What engineering or test data supports that decision? In the absence of good data, I prefer to stay with glass. I think Lexan for all other windows is a good idea for all the reasons mentioned. But please don’t create an unsafe condition. I support either alternative with the data to back it up. And (seriously) I hereby volunteer for the vacuum patrol if we stay with a glass windshield.
-
Saltfever,
Laminated safety glass winshields is not the problem. Tempered glass in the side and rear windows that disintegrates into crumbs is the problem the association is attempting to address.
Jim
-
Jim, you are right and I realize most of the thread is about the other windows. However, a few posts mentioned the windshield and you know how it is . . . . sometimes unintended consequences result from good intentions. Nobody has mentioned fire in this thread so I brought it up. BTW, once while I was flame-polishing a Lexan edge, it caught on fire. Lexan is flamable!
I agree with Tom's post about running over glass with $2,000 (today's prices) worth of tires. I just wish there was a better non-flamable substitute.
-
What about us BNI only members? where's our voice?
You know we go through this conversation every year. Search the archives, this has been discussed for several years on rule changes and BNI members. Basically you do not have any voting rights. You must belong to a SCTA club, where your representatives vote for you.
This is not a flame, but we have beaten this topic to death over the last 10 years on the forum.
BNI runs SCTA rules, want a vote join a club period.
JonAmo
-
Jon I agree but the misunderstanding will never go away. There are a lot of new people interested in LSR and they just don't know the culture or even the distinction between BNI and SCTA. Its the same deal with the 200 club. I was at SEMA and the guy in the Miller Welding booth, building the BMW's roll cage said he wanted to get into the 200 club. Once I explained he had to set a record (or reach a minimum) his expression changed! This was a person with a experienced racing background.
-
Mike is a member of the SCTA. I think he was just pulling everyones Chain. LOL
Tom G.
PS. Look at his Signature on all his posts.
-
What about us BNI only members? where's our voice?
Now that I know who attends and THINK about It. BNI Members are pretty well represented.
• Rules Committee Coordinator (appointed by SCTA board)
• The Chair of each Category committee or his designee
• 1 Representative from each SCTA Club
• 2 SCTA Board members
• 1 USFRA Representative
• Car Technical Chair
• Motorcycle Technical Chair
I'll bet even the USFRA Representative is a BNI Member.
I apologize for my off the cuff remarks.
AMO, read the whole thread.
Im done with it.
-
any one know what passed last night?? :-D
-
Yeah, I do. I'm sending a final copy out to make sure I have everything correct. Will post on Monday.
Joanie and I are taking a weekend, if I can get her off Facebook,
DW
-
Joanie and I are taking a weekend, if I can get her off Facebook,
DW
Kids! :mrgreen: Tony
-
Thanks, Dan!
-
Dan, you and Joanie have a fun week end on the big boat.
:cheers:
-
Thanks Dan---tell her you have a big bottle of her favorite Merlot wine and you want to try it out on her
-
I talked to Gene Barbee about the rules vote at the Board/Reps meeting last night; but like most retired guys he couldn't remember much....Hey it was last night not this morning........JD (I'll wait for DW, then read the whinners comments)
-
The simple answer is they all past but 1. Minor refinements to a couple. Went fairly smooth compared to some board meetings in the past. I didn't see anyone pull a knife or anything. :evil:
I think that was due to the efforts of all the committee and board members doing their homework, trying to make concise rules and being prepaired.
Good job guys. 8-)
-
I talked to Gene Barbee about the rules vote at the Board/Reps meeting last night; but like most retired guys he couldn't remember much....Hey it was last night not this morning........JD (I'll wait for DW, then read the whinners comments)
:roll:
-
I didn't see it mentioned here so I thought I would ask:
My favorite engine builder said there was a proposal to make all cars going over 250 mph use full frames; i.e. no unibody cars without the "2nd gen nascar" treatment. Since this would obsolete more current CC's than allow, I thought it was a little extreme. Any info out there?
Personal note: I'm building a CC starting with an early '90's unibody chassis with a full cage installed. Keeping the unibody is soooooo much less work for suspension, drivetrain, and body panel mounting that we couldn't do the project otherwise.
-
I didn't see it mentioned here so I thought I would ask:
My favorite engine builder said there was a proposal to make all cars going over 250 mph use full frames; i.e. no unibody cars without the "2nd gen nascar" treatment. Since this would obsolete more current CC's than allow, I thought it was a little extreme. Any info out there?
Personal note: I'm building a CC starting with an early '90's unibody chassis with a full cage installed. Keeping the unibody is soooooo much less work for suspension, drivetrain, and body panel mounting that we couldn't do the project otherwise.
No such rule went through committee.
-
On the Lexan/film/debris debate, I know the rules committee has already voted and the following is just M2c from years of track crew work and fab experience with compound curved acrylic.
Vacuuming up 1/8th" shards of transparent glass shards on a salt surface over miles of track is not practical. From personal experience, it was impractical on dark, hard pavement on a far more limited track! If we couldn't sweep it with a broom, it was left for everyone's vehicle to "displace" in subsequent sessions.
For vacuuming: One, it's too easy to miss things especially in soft salt conditions where the salt debris is thicker than the size of the glass particles. Two, the salt will toast those vacuum motors pretty quick; I'd wonder how long the ones they use last and what the crews (smart, experienced people) hose them with both before and after race week. ACF-50 would be my choice.
JL222 and Bvllercr are right: compound curves in glass, transparent films, or plastics bite the big one. With film it's no big deal, we just add seems and overlaps. With acrylic or Lexan the degree of hassle is proportional to the square of the thickness and the degree of compound. I will post methods for anyone interested. As far as the Firebird and Camaro rear windows go, they're close to flat-wrap: GM is not stupid and compound is more expensive than flat-wrap. If we can wrap film, we can bend Lexan. If we can't, it's a major b---ch. Film inside AND outside would be good along with some specification of type of film and age (see below).
As far as deflection due to pressure goes, to use Lexan at high speeds I'd add LOTS of stiffeners on the inside with nice, big fender washers to the surface and a full frame (like rally cars, good picture there). If it bends, add more. The cockpit is always under more pressure than the air going around it, in aircraft we call this "blowing out" the glass. We have this issue with every new design. It is solved with either decreasing the gauge of the acrylic to the point that it will handle the compound curve during forming or adding supports so that the size of each piece is decreased along with the degree of compound (look at Glasair vs. Lancair). Only one high-performance aircraft in the last 30 years didn't have a full frame on a big canopy (Venture) and everyone with that aircraft changed to a full frame for all of reasons raised on this board by some pretty smart people.
Last note: All, and I mean ALL, elastomers and hydrocarbon polymers (acrylic, Lexan, film, etc.) age due to oxidation with time, altitude, and UV exposure. Some films are more resilient to this (3M), some aren't (bare Lexan, tint film). I'm speaking to the experienced (and therefore, professional) racers here: All of you take a great deal of care (and pride) in your vehicles and safety equipment far beyond the rules requirements. Do the research on the options and make reasoned decisions on window materials, films, and reinforcements within and beyond the rules. As you do now, and have done for years. This is a time vs. money issue: learning more about the subject will enable everyone to fab their own safe solutions at low cost vs. blowing a lot of money on someone else's.
-
No such rule went through committee.
Thank you, I didn't think so. I do trust my source though, so someone is thinking of it.
-
Dan, are you back from your yachting expedition?? :? The suspense is killing me.
-
I'm wearing out my refresh button. :-D :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: Time for Budweiser engineering.
Doug
-
I finished the format for public release. I am waiting for approval before I can release the info.
Now I have to go estimates for the damage to my truck while I was away. 19 years ago it seemed like a good idea to have another kid, wrong.
On a happier side, if you have a chance to visit the Queen Mary in Long Beach Harbor I suggest a trip. Very interesting and a nice stay at competitive hotel prices.
DW
-
Now I have to go estimates for the damage to my truck while I was away.
DW
Dan,
Be happy it was your truck, it could have been your Roadster, if you still have it.
Tom G.
-
Glad you guys had a nice time, will put it on my bucket list------hopefully no personal injuries involved with the kid!!!!!!
-
Now I have to go estimates for the damage to my truck while I was away. 19 years ago it seemed like a good idea to have another kid, wrong.
We trust your kid is okay, although I wouldn't want to have been in their shoes when you got home.
Sounds like you can pilot the truck to the body shop - but being down a vehicle is always a PITA.
-
Time for Budweiser engineering :cheers: Can I get an AMEN from the congregation ?
-
What was the final decision concerning glass and safety film.
-
Here's to :cheers: Bingenginering
Be nice to know which one didn't pass :-)
-
Time for Budweiser engineering :cheers: Can I get an AMEN from the congregation ?
Call me a heretic, but I don't drink Budweiser.
I only drink beer.
-
Time for Budweiser engineering :cheers: Can I get an AMEN from the congregation ?
Call me a heretic, but I don't drink Budweiser.
I only drink beer.
Amen MM... :cheers:
-
Budweiser "A headache in every can"
-
I wanted to let everyone know that I am waiting for approval from the board so that I can release the changes to the public. I do not anticipate any problems, just a little proof reading.
When I publish the changes all I need to do on my end is update certain areas, like Save the Salt message, dates from ECTA and others, buy a bottle of Jack Daniels and go over to Jim Miller's for a photo party.
When that is done we can publish a rulebook. I, and the board, are shooting for January. This is a long term goal that has taken me a few years to accomplish.
DW
-
When that is done we can publish a rulebook. I, and the board, are shooting for January. This is a long term goal that has taken me a few years to accomplish.
DW
[/quote]
DW
Sounds like a plan. Thanks for all the effort and the update on it.
Ed
-
It's about 7.30 Sunday evening (here in Michigan, at least) and I've just posted the 2011 SCTA rule changes on the home page of landracing.com. If you don't remember how to get to the home page -- there's a link at the upper left hand corner of the page you're reading, right under your photo or avatar or whatever you've got up there. It says "Back to landracing.com home page".
Go right now and take a scan through. They'll stay up for a while, don't you worry. Dan reports they hope to have the rulebooks available in January.
Thank you very much, Dan -- and everyone in the SCTA chain of command, which includes racers that take the time to submit rule change requests. It's great -- having the changes available before the end of November of the year preceding when the new rules will be in effect.
Go read 'em!
-
Thanks, Jon!
-
Ouch.
-
Thanks for posting!
The safety film solution looks like a good decision. Might be several folks having to redo their roll cages to get their lateral head support to go all the way past the leading edge of their helmet. Might make some cars very difficult to egress.
I just wish the rule keeping quick change rear ends out of production would be repealed. I just don't see the significance.
-
Thanks for posting!
The safety film solution looks like a good decision. Might be several folks having to redo their roll cages to get their lateral head support to go all the way past the leading edge of their helmet. Might make some cars very difficult to egress.
I just wish the rule keeping quick change rear ends out of production would be repealed. I just don't see the significance.
Did you send in a rule change request form. You can get one on the SCTA site. :wink:
-
Mayor,
Thanks for yours and UNKNOWN others for the tremendous efforts over the last few years to make this happen.. Rules KNOWN and PUBLISHED before Dec 1st.. :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:
-
Man o life, am I ever concerned about the new helmet side restraint rule.
First of all, I don't think that any of the previously approved "race car seats" with built in side supports will meet the 2" rule.
Secondly, I don't think a driver in a closed car will be able to enter the drivers seat with a helmet and "hans" type forward restraint system in place. Trying to put those devices on in the car is next to impossible.
Thirdly, if the driver is of moderate height, I don't know how he can possibly duck under the drivers side restraint with his helmet and/or restraint in place.
Fourth, in the event of fire or emergency, I don't think removing either of these devices with your fire gloves on is a option. Try undoing your helmet with a pair of SFI 20 gloves on.
Fifth, exiting the car in a fire, is being greatly impeded by this decision.
Sixth, our sport is unique in that we tow or push our race cars through the pits and on the return roads. We share the pits with spectators, other race cars, pit vehicles, rat rods, and tourists who all seem oblivious to their surroundings.
Try sitting in the drivers seat and having to look our to the side and imagine a kid on a bycycle trying to pass you as you turn into your pit.
Imagine turning off the race course onto the return road and T-boning a chase vehicle .
I am as much a proponent of safety as anyone our there, but I believe this rule has gone too far in trying to protect us from our selves..........Bob Drury.
-
Man o life, am I ever concerned about the new helmet side restraint rule.
First of all, I don't think that any of the previously approved "race car seats" with built in side supports will meet the 2" rule.
Secondly, I don't think a driver in a closed car will be able to enter the drivers seat with a helmet and "hans" type forward restraint system in place. Trying to put those devices on in the car is next to impossible.
Thirdly, if the driver is of moderate height, I don't know how he can possibly duck under the drivers side restraint with his helmet and/or restraint in place.
Fourth, in the event of fire or emergency, I don't think removing either of these devices with your fire gloves on is a option. Try undoing your helmet with a pair of SFI 20 gloves on.
Fifth, exiting the car in a fire, is being greatly impeded by this decision.
Sixth, our sport is unique in that we tow or push our race cars through the pits and on the return roads. We share the pits with spectators, other race cars, pit vehicles, rat rods, and tourists who all seem oblivious to their surroundings.
Try sitting in the drivers seat and having to look our to the side and imagine a kid on a bycycle trying to pass you as you turn into your pit.
Imagine turning off the race course onto the return road and T-boning a chase vehicle .
I am as much a proponent of safety as anyone our there, but I believe this rule has gone too far in trying to protect us from our selves..........Bob Drury.
I sent in a rule change request addressing the problem of exiting the car and fire resulting in DEATH so the committee members knew about it. As far as I know
I also suggested that they ''highly recommend the use of a Hans type device but not make it mandatory as it would not work in all cars.
JL222
-
What you didn't write here or Pat did not tell you is that NO suggestions for window changes will be going to the board as a result of the meeting held on Sat.
DW
I must be missing something :?
-
" First of all, I don't think that any of the previously approved "race car seats" with built in side supports will meet the 2" rule."
I am trying to interpet the rule correctly. I believe it is 2" side to side with the helmet supports extending forward at minimum to the front leading edge of the helmet :?
-
T Salt, go to your racecar, place your helmet aproximately where your head would be. Now imagine the drivers side restraint plate or bar clear to the front of the helmet.
Your periferal vision is now essentaly blocked to the left, and if you lower it to the bottom so you can see, imagine trying to get out without catching your Hans type device, helmet, tethers, etc.
If you move it to the top, you risk snapping your neck in a side impact.
Obviously vision to the right will be equally impaired.
Unless you run in a class with a mandated "funny car" type cage, ala roadsters, this is going to be a mess to deal with on existing cars.
I am 6' 3" and 245 lbs. There are drivers larger than me. We aint all gymnasts, and able to turn ourselves into a pretzel.
If they enforce this rule, the Nascar style seats cannor possibly be called legal without major modifications. I didn't think they were in accordance with the rules last year either. Bob
-
Bob I feel your pain I am exactly your size.
But I have seen the in car video that promted this---I would rather be trying to get out than be in the car with a broken neck because my helmet CAUGHT out side of the cage when my straps STRETCHED that far in the flip.
-
Sparky, then lets mandate different belts, not re-engineer the whole darned structure. :-P Bob
-
Bob I feel your pain I am exactly your size.
But I have seen the in car video that promted this---I would rather be trying to get out than be in the car with a broken neck because my helmet CAUGHT out side of the cage when my straps STRETCHED that far in the flip.
Sparky... if your reffering to the Thompson video, if the belts had been mounted to SCTA specs and if he were strapped in tighter he would not have moved as far. Review the video he's moving up and down inside the belts.
JL222
-
I agree that the mounting is too high---but an awfull lot of that up and down is probabally spinal compression.
You take a high g impact the belts better stretch or they aren't helping lessen the G loading much.
-
I'm thinking a hinged lateral restraint in the entrance side with a clevis pin arrangement and a rip cord attached to the window net. Pull the net down, the pin comes out, you flip the front part of the new restraint out of the way, and like Houdini, you're out.
-
Edit . . .You take a high g impact the belts better stretch or they aren't helping lessen the G loading much.
Finally, it has been mentioned. Stretch is a good thing (within reason). . . It attenuates the G-force. Obviously, is should not be to the point you collide with things, but you need some stretch. After the Thompson video some comments inferred that no stretch was better. I.e., the polyester vs. nylon discussions.
Now to another point. You need lateral cushioning on either side of the helmet. The new rule says . . . provide restriction to lateral head movement of less than 2 in. per side inclusive of structure deflection . . .When you look at NASCAR seats some seats look like they have 2”-3” of cushion on each side. Has anyone measured the foam on a NASCAR Seat? I would like to have at least two inches or more of foam on each side plus some air space so the helmet and eyeballs don’t rattle. Does “inclusive of structure deflection” mean you can only have a maximum of 2” between the helmet and steel, with foam stuffed in the 2” space? Or can you have 2” of foam and 1 or 2” of air for some freedom? Is 2” on each side enough space for the foam as well as a little air space so there is no helmut contact with the vibrating structure?
-
5.D.3 Gas Coupe - /BGC, /GC
A replacement radiator of the same height and width and mounted in the original location as OEM shall be used. Blocking of air flow thru the radiator in front or behind is not allowed.
The intent is clear but here is the problem. How do you run 800Hp through a Vega radiator? Gas class can be an engine swap. If the car originally had a very small radiator you can’t run “same height and width” if you swap in a big motor! Even with an OEM motor (like the Cohn’s Monza) what do you do when it puts out 5 x HP? I don't know of a single gas coupe that can meet this rule. Seriously, what do I do . . . :?
-
I think the rule was designed to keep guys from building air conditioning condenser style radiators with very tight fin counts to block the air. :-o But I don’t think it will stop them. :evil: Just look at a NASCAR speedway radiator, interesting fin counts they have. Just my two cents. Tony
-
I am not quibbling with the intent of the rule. Obviously, this rule as many LSR rules, is trying to prevent an undue aero advantage. But English is my first language . . . this rule is clear. Same height and width as OEM will outlaw just about every gas coupe running! The picture above is one of the winningest "Classic" cars out there. Look at the top radiator mount (the purple thingie). See how short it is. That is the OEM width. Look at his radiator! Seriously, most gas coupes had small OEM radiators. Just look at the HP those cars have now.
If the intent is to stop obstructions (like a gas tank) in front of, or back of the radiator . . . I get it. But it doesn't say that. Gas coupe is mostly about engine swaps. Yeah, QC or non-stock blower, moves you into GC. But the HP is always greater than stock. You can't run an OEM-size radiator. This rule forces you to go thicker which is an air restriction and defeats the purpose of the rule. What is going on . . . :?
-
A lot of folks run a remote mounted radiator in a tank system---run the heater hoses at most through the stock radiator.
-
Edit . . .You take a high g impact the belts better stretch or they aren't helping lessen the G loading much.
Finally, it has been mentioned. Stretch is a good thing (within reason). . . It attenuates the G-force. Obviously, is should not be to the point you collide with things, but you need some stretch. After the Thompson video some comments inferred that no stretch was better. I.e., the polyester vs. nylon discussions.
Now to another point. You need lateral cushioning on either side of the helmet. The new rule says . . . provide restriction to lateral head movement of less than 2 in. per side inclusive of structure deflection . . .When you look at NASCAR seats some seats look like they have 2”-3” of cushion on each side. Has anyone measured the foam on a NASCAR Seat? I would like to have at least two inches or more of foam on each side plus some air space so the helmet and eyeballs don’t rattle. Does “inclusive of structure deflection” mean you can only have a maximum of 2” between the helmet and steel, with foam stuffed in the 2” space? Or can you have 2” of foam and 1 or 2” of air for some freedom? Is 2” on each side enough space for the foam as well as a little air space so there is no helmut contact with the vibrating structure?
This is what Iam wondering too?
-
Polyester belts still stretch and absorb some of the impact, it's just that they don't stretch excessively like nylon.
Pete
-
5.D.3 Gas Coupe - /BGC, /GC
A replacement radiator of the same height and width and mounted in the original location as OEM shall be used. Blocking of air flow thru the radiator in front or behind is not allowed.
The intent is clear but here is the problem. How do you run 800Hp through a Vega radiator? Gas class can be an engine swap. If the car originally had a very small radiator you can’t run “same height and width” if you swap in a big motor! Even with an OEM motor (like the Cohn’s Monza) what do you do when it puts out 5 x HP? I don't know of a single gas coupe that can meet this rule. Seriously, what do I do . . . :?
A replacement radiator can be bigger than stock, just not smaller. It was discussed having it say "at least the same height...." at the rule meeting but it was decided that it was not necessary.
-
5.D.3 Gas Coupe - /BGC, /GC
A replacement radiator of the same height and width and mounted in the original location as OEM shall be used. Blocking of air flow thru the radiator in front or behind is not allowed.
The intent is clear but here is the problem. How do you run 800Hp through a Vega radiator? Gas class can be an engine swap. If the car originally had a very small radiator you can’t run “same height and width” if you swap in a big motor! Even with an OEM motor (like the Cohn’s Monza) what do you do when it puts out 5 x HP? I don't know of a single gas coupe that can meet this rule. Seriously, what do I do . . . :?
As racers we seem to whine sometimes. But then as racers we think of a way to get around problems all the time. weather it's making more power from a small engine or making a stock body just a bit more aero.
The answer to this question has been around for decades........
It's called a water tank. :wink: Also note the rule only gives outside demensions, not thickness.
Oh, and as far as gas coupes go, I can point out many who use a stock size radiator..... some running over 1400 hp. Go figure..... :-D
-
What if your radiator is stock size by the sq. inch but height and width are not stock and still fits the stock hole in a stock radiator support?
-
Polyester belts still stretch and absorb some of the impact, it's just that they don't stretch excessively like nylon.
Pete
They stretch one half as much as nylon.
joe
-
The answer to this question has been around for decades........
It's called a water tank. :wink: Also note the rule only gives outside dimensions, not thickness.
I was thinking the same thing. Why not add add another row of tubes. Back in 1968 I had a 64 Falcon, and built a 13-1 compression, 260 Ford motor for the street. Stock Radiator would only last 5 minutes in the summer, took it to a Radiator shop and had them make a 4 core radiator for it. Worked great in 115 degree weather.
Tom G.
-
Your Falcon was a 6 cylinder and longer than a V-8. There was plenty of room to make the radiator thicker when you stuck in a shorter V-8. I had one and did exactly that. Use the popular Monza as an example. The engine compartment is so short you can barley squeeze in a stock thickness radiator. The rules prevent you from cutting stock sheet metal to fit a thicker radiator. But even if you could add a thicker radiator it restricts air flow which defeats the purpose of this rule!
Mike, I agree your method will work and always appreciate your experience and insight. But now you have added another hazard to the cockpit. Not only is there hot oil from the dry sump but now hot water plumbing is there to boil the driver if there is a failure during an accident. There are plenty of gas coupes running without any inside plumbing. This just adds unnecessary complexity and more safety issues.
I respect the rule making process. I appreciate all the hard work (and more importantly the time) in making any rule or rule change. I am interpreting the English language. If something else was meant then the text needs to be changed to reflect that intent.
-
The simple answer is they all past but 1. Minor refinements to a couple. Went fairly smooth compared to some board meetings in the past. I didn't see anyone pull a knife or anything. :evil:
I think that was due to the efforts of all the committee and board members doing their homework, trying to make concise rules and being prepaired.
Good job guys. 8-)
When ONE THATS ONE rule committee or board member can tell us how far a helmet side support is from the front roll bar on a full roll cage without measuring NOW I would agree with you about homework.
But if they considered the Thompson video as any deciding factor THEY are completly wrong do to the FACT that the seat belts were mounted wrong and not tight which allowed the belts to stretch to much and to for him to move up down and forward.
We have a full funny car type cage in the 222 Camaro and installed the SCTA required $500 dollar [tire shake] padding as instructed to the edge of roll cage as the shape of padding is designed, the bottom front edge of helmet is 1 1/2'' in front of funny car cage. Our shoulders and back are rubbing the roll bars when we exit now adding 1 1/2'' more is putting us in danger.
JL222
Homework my Acura
-
Let me try this.
Does anyone still use the stock gas tank in their Monza, Firebird, Mustang, etc. race car? I sure don't, but it makes a great water tank or place to put one that's not in the drivers compartment. 8-)
One nice thing about this forum is we can ALL learn from other peoples experience. Don't be afraid to ask or expound on your ideas folks. It can and does help more folks than you might think. It's the off season, lets get some more questions out here, I know you want to ask..... :-)
-
As racers we seem to whine sometimes. But then as racers we think of a way to get around problems all the time. weather it's making more power from a small engine or making a stock body just a bit more aero.
The answer to this question has been around for decades........
It's called a water tank. :wink: Also note the rule only gives outside demensions, not thickness.
Oh, and as far as gas coupes go, I can point out many who use a stock size radiator..... some running over 1400 hp. Go figure..... :-D
Mike, I am sorry you think I’m whining. I don’t want hot water in the cockpit! This creates an unnecessary safety issue.
This rule change is not an issue for bigger cars. Camaros, Firebirds, Mustangs etc all have very wide stock radiators regardless of core thickness. As you well know and mentioned 1,400 hp can be handled with core thickness and other tricks. :wink: The issue is for smaller cars. Monza, Vega, Honda, Toyota, ect. They all use go-cart sized radiators. The rule is clear . . . OEM dimensions means OEM area. All you can do is add thickness and in these small cars you can’t do that when stuffing in a bigger engine. You can’t do an engine set-back and you can’t cut sheet metal to be a legal gas coupe.
The rule is well intended but it creates very broad unintended implications.
-
Remember that while we work to interpret the "intent" of the rule, we have to be very careful to not violate the "spirit" of the rule , as we found out this year.
Doug
-
Who or what was the exact infraction? Maybe, if we had some insider information, we could figure out how to build our legal cars.
-
Let me try this.
Does anyone still use the stock gas tank in their Monza, Firebird, Mustang, etc. race car? I sure don't, but it makes a great water tank or place to put one that's not in the drivers compartment. 8-)
A larger than stock radiator works well and it doesn't force you to put boiling water in the cockpit. (or in your case, pressurized, super heated steam). Why create another safety issue if a current set-up works? This rule forces you to go to a smaller tank and therefore less-safe methods.
-
The simple answer is they all past but 1. Minor refinements to a couple. Went fairly smooth compared to some board meetings in the past. I didn't see anyone pull a knife or anything. :evil:
I think that was due to the efforts of all the committee and board members doing their homework, trying to make concise rules and being prepaired.
Good job guys. 8-)
When ONE THATS ONE rule committee or board member can tell us how far a helmet side support is from the front roll bar on a full roll cage without measuring NOW I would agree with you about homework.
But if they considered the Thompson video as any deciding factor THEY are completly wrong do to the FACT that the seat belts were mounted wrong and not tight which allowed the belts to stretch to much and to for him to move up down and forward.
We have a full funny car type cage in the 222 Camaro and installed the SCTA required $500 dollar [tire shake] padding as instructed to the edge of roll cage as the shape of padding is designed, the bottom front edge of helmet is 1 1/2'' in front of funny car cage. Our shoulders and back are rubbing the roll bars when we exit now adding 1 1/2 more is putting us in danger.
JL222
Homework my Acura
John, all you do is bitch about the process. Tim Rochlitzer & Fred Daninfeltzer make it to most board meetings. They are from your former stomping grounds. I'm sure you get filled in on whats going on, If not then that's your fault. It's not perfect but better than in the past when we got the rule changes in May! You have lots to contribute and I do understand your concerns but that doesn't mean the SCTA is doing it just to spite you. Plenty of people are at the rules committee meetings and talk about the good and bad of everything. It takes day's of haggling to find the words that seem to work best but sometimes a rule just is that.... a rule.
What I meant about doing their homework was that it got finished earlier this year than ever, and not because it was just pushed through committee.
Just a note: You are not required to have the padding that you use (although it's better than roll bar padding) and getting out of each car has it pluses and minuses. It's up to the builder IMO.
-
My friend Gary Williams ran a Monza with a 454 at El Mirage and Bonneville for a while. He used the stock radiator and a water tank mounted where the gas tank had been. His fuel came from in front of the stock radiator. His water circulated in the radiator until a thermostat opened and then allowed the water from the tank to be pumped into the block and mix with the already hot water. Seemed to work quite well. His fuel tank effectively blocked any air through the radiator. Don't know what the ruling would be on that now. I will say that my street driven Studebaker Lark needed a much larger radiator for the 383 than the 170 inch six used. The natural answer was and always has been, Put a bigger radiator in it. So now my real street driven normal everyday car is illegal. I don't think that sounds right.
-
My friend Gary Williams ran a Monza with a 454 at El Mirage and Bonneville for a while. edit . . . His fuel tank effectively blocked any air through the radiator. Don't know what the ruling would be on that now.
I met Gary and saw the car at Elmo a few year ago. A very nice and sharing guy. His fuel tank completely blocked air flow and a smart idea that is now illegal.
New rule: Blocking of air flow thru the radiator in front or behind is not allowed.
-
Your Falcon was a 6 cylinder and longer than a V-8. There was plenty of room to make the radiator thicker when you stuck in a shorter V-8. I had one and did exactly that. Use the popular Monza as an example. The engine compartment is so short you can barley squeeze in a stock thickness radiator. The rules prevent you from cutting stock sheet metal to fit a thicker radiator. But even if you could add a thicker radiator it restricts air flow which defeats the purpose of this rule!
Saltfever,
I need to correct you on a couple of things you said in the above post which you assumed. First my car never had a six cylinder in it. It came from the Ford Factory with a 260 V8 in 1964. They first put a 260 V8 in the Falcon series in the rounded 1963 Sprint model. My new 4 core radiator was a complete bolt in, no sheet metal was ever changed. I used a Flex lite Fan (to gain a little HP) on a stock water pump, and had zero clearance problems. It was very simple and worked very efficiently. I used to fill up with Custom Supreme at Chevron (center pump) for 45 cents a gallon. LOL.
I cannot comment on a monza since I have never owned one.
Tom G.
-
New rule: Blocking of air flow thru the radiator in front or behind is not allowed.
I don’t want to give any secrets away, but you don’t need to put anything to block the air from going through the radiator. As I said earlier this can be accomplished with a tighter fin count. The standard fin count on a racing radiator is 18 per inch, but there are several companies that make them with tighter fin counts. One company out of Australia (they also have a shop in NC) have been playing around with different shapes on fins for air control in front of the car. You guys surely don’t think the fast cars at Daytona or Talladega use a standard racing radiator. If I had a gas coupe I would do what Dynoroom suggested, run a water tank in the stock gas tank location and then maximize the effects of the radiator on the aero, and I know of at least one special Australian/US radiator built for a street roadster yet to run. :mrgreen: Tony
-
All this bickering back and forth and all this rule change banter has me wondering a few things.
1. Am I even Legal to run a SCTA event ?
2. Should I even plan on spending a ton of cash to get me, the crew and the car to the salt?
3. Do I want to be "bashed" on how my car is built ?
Before this post "I thought" I knew the answers to the above 3 questions.. now I don't.
Charles
-
Is it within the rules to have all those pesky bugs that completely block my radiator, or do I have to clean them out before I get to the salt? Is this within the intent and "spirit" of the rule? :evil:
:cheers: :cheers:
-
Charles, if your Stude has all stock replacement glass, you are okay.
If or what you have for lateral head restraints was built for last year, I doubt it. I forsee one hell of a mess during inspections at Speedweek.
It has taken The SCTA three years to play with this rule, and I will bet my A-- that they still won't have a definitive drawing in the rule book.
I am about to "can opener" a hole thru the roof to get in and out of the car. Maybe I can prefect the John Force "butt slide" coming out.
The good news is that if you and I both lose 150 lbs., we may be able to egress the car in, oh, say two minutes give or take........................... Bob
-
Buick, that obviously is their intent. The Spirit means they think they thought to add it to the rule but forgot. At least thats what I think they thought when they thought up the thing in the first place.
-
Charles, if your Stude has all stock replacement glass, you are okay.
If or what you have for lateral head restraints was built for last year, I doubt it. I forsee one hell of a mess during inspections at Speedweek.
It has taken The SCTA three years to play with this rule, and I will bet my A-- that they still won't have a definitive drawing in the rule book.
I am about to "can opener" a hole thru the roof to get in and out of the car. Maybe I can prefect the John Force "butt slide" coming out.
The good news is that if you and I both lose 150 lbs., we may be able to egress the car in, oh, say two minutes give or take........................... Bob
The escape hatch sound like a good Idea, however, when Greg Everitt's 749 stude blew an engine at WF and had a fire he couldn't get out through the roof hatch do to the longer helmet support extensions he installed.
-
Dynoroom...If bitchen about the Thompson video having anything to do with their process your right, as far as
the rule committee and board I don't have any problem with the process. Just the outcome somtimes.
Maybe you should reread your statment.
''I think that was due to the efforts of all the committee and board members doing there homework, trying to make concise rules and being prepaired''
There are a lot of racers that this rulling will effect not just me yet the rules committee thinks it has a better design than the latest nascar seat [which would never pass SCTA inspection. [ they would never be able to get out]
As far as race car design we went with a full body off Alston prostock chassis with funny car cage which exceeds
SCTA requirements without the cage and Your remark about getting in and out being up to the builder, when SCTA hasn't GOT A CLUE about the room involved, but adds requirements like this after the build...
Still waiting on a board member or committee member on how far from edge of helmet side support to front of roll cage.
JL222
Rule committee and board homework my ASS
,
-
All this bickering back and forth and all this rule change banter has me wondering a few things.
1. Am I even Legal to run a SCTA event ?
2. Should I even plan on spending a ton of cash to get me, the crew and the car to the salt?
3. Do I want to be "bashed" on how my car is built ?
Before this post "I thought" I knew the answers to the above 3 questions.. now I don't.
Charles
Charles anybody that would '' bash'' your car has a bad case of ''rectal cranial intrusion'' :-D its one of the most well built cars around, we all know that.
The only problem is this helmet support rule.
JL222
-
Believe it or not, I appreciate what the rule makers try to do, its the vagueness of the "lawyerese" that makes it hard.
I feel that every year, ALL proposed rule changes should be sent to EVERY member of the SCTA with a questionaire to be returned to the SCTA office.
This questionaire should ask for input on the proposed rule changes.
After revue by the Rules Committee, the changes should be put up to a vote of the membership before being adopted, but only after the proposed new rules are again made public.
If any new or last minute language is added after the membership has read it, the rule should be removed from the ballot until it goes thru the process outlined above.
The vote should be by mail.
For those who think this sounds ridiculous, you probably won't be making your third annual attemp at building a new lateral helmet restraint into your roll cage in a attempt to meet probably the most poorly written rule in the book. Don't believe me? Pull out your 2009 and 2010 rule books.
Otto VonBismark once said "the less people know about how sausages and laws are made, the better off they will be".
I wonder if EACH member of the rules committee has a WRITTEN copy of the FINISHED rule proposal to study at home BEFORE the evening of the vote, or are last minute proposals and alterations allowed?
And yes, I bitched about this rule last year and the year before.... not because of the rule idea, but because of the ambiguous and vague deffinitions and lack of roll cage type drawings in the book.
Bob
-
All this bickering back and forth and all this rule change banter has me wondering a few things.
1. Am I even Legal to run a SCTA event ?
2. Should I even plan on spending a ton of cash to get me, the crew and the car to the salt?
3. Do I want to be "bashed" on how my car is built ?
Before this post "I thought" I knew the answers to the above 3 questions.. now I don't.
Charles
I am with you. I enjoy working on my car, but not thrilled with cutting out, or otherwise removing equipment I was required to install for 2010. Not to be overly dramatic, but going back to my dirt modified is starting to sound good. Another good point that has been made hear is that a seat legal for installation in a NASCAR vehicle would not be legal in SCTA. I DO appreciate that the INTENT is to make racing safer, but REALLY, can those doing the rule making , at least consider that the officials in NASCAR, INDY car, NHRA, etc might know something too?
OK, I have it out of my system now. :roll:
-
Can we hear some complaining from the bike guys now :roll:
:-D
Bill
-
All this bickering back and forth and all this rule change banter has me wondering a few things.
1. Am I even Legal to run a SCTA event ?
2. Should I even plan on spending a ton of cash to get me, the crew and the car to the salt?
3. Do I want to be "bashed" on how my car is built ?
Charles
Charles I read and enjoy your posts and you are always cordial and often witty. But I am going to use your post to bring up something that needs to be said.
We are not bickering, arguing, or criticizing. We are just a bunch of guys trying to build, or keep a car legal. If all of us were sitting around Starbucks with a cup of coffee and rule book in hand, we would not call the discussion bickering. It might be called bench racing but ultimately it would be a brain-storming session prevailing on the wisdom and experience of everyone there. Good (or bad) feelings and friendships develop through social interaction. Email thwarts non-verbal social communication. Because of these missing ingredients many posters loose patience with a thread. But is it fair for any individual to decide thread value for all? A thread will die a natural death when the last post doesn’t get a response. Prior to that point there are interested parties that are receiving some value. Anyone can leave at any time. There is never any reason to criticize the value of a thread.
Many of us don’t belong to SCTA clubs or are thousands of miles away. We can’t possibly have the knowledge that is gained simply by assimilation with the So Cal network. This forum bridges that gap in a significant way because some very caring and unselfish people are willing to share their experience. If an absentee builder, owner, or driver, is struggling with anything on this list it is usually how to (1) build it safer or (2) build a legal winner. Asking and re-asking is the only way if the rule book creates uncertainty rather than clarity. Obviously the goal is to always create a clear rule. However, no posting or individual should be faulted if they are drilling toward a better understanding.
-
Another good point that has been made hear is that a seat legal for installation in a NASCAR vehicle would not be legal in SCTA.
The point of that posting was the SCTA escape issue. A NASCAR seat is illegal. Only if its installation thwarted the escape requirement would it be illegal.
-
On another thread, the question is asked about a source for the new window film.
This rule is a classic example of a well written rule. Unfortunatly, the cart got ahead of the horse.
When this rule was written, to the best of my knowledge, no one had produced a name or example of a approved product or source.
Yes, it sounds like 3M may have the answer, but if that is the case, why in h--l isn't it listed as a example of a product that is legal.
It makes one wonder if other rule changes such as the lateral head restraint change was the result of watching the Thompson video.
Did anyone check to see if he had extra padding in the seat. Did anyone personally inspect the seat belt mounts.
Two years ago I sent a email on how the lateral restraint rule could be rewritten for clarity.
I sent it to the rules committee chairman, amongst others, and was told that they really didn't know what to write because of all the different cage styles.
As I stated in a earlier post, I am all for safety, and believe that the rules committee is overall doing what they think is right, but we don't need knee jerk solutions without having the solutions at hand.
Don't arbitrarly make up rules without having the solution in hand. Bob
-
I just checked,,, the opening between my seats lateral head restraint (side to side) is 4.09 inches wider than my helmet.
So all I have to do is add a sliver of padding to be a 2" per side max movement.
Charles
-
There are a ton of cars that had to double pad to get legal in the past. ME for one.
I have known or heard of very few folks that couldn't run as long as they, their driver or crew chief didn't cop a 'tude when they were in inspection.
-
Sparky, just as a heads up, when the lateral rule was first written, it said 2 inches to structure. In the next paragraph it said 1 inch approved padding was manditory which meant, as written, you would have 2 inches total to slide your helmet and hans device into place. That was when I sent in a potential rules clarification. Bob
-
One more add to my knee jerk post: The "hans" rule for laydown streamliners when no such device was available for purchase. I rest my case ( until another delusion reappears)................ Bob
-
Bob...Bob...Bob... your only delusion is that you can still jerk your knees... :roll: well maybe not your only ... :-D
we still have our fingers crossed that someone (DJ) will certify a HNR for a lay down that won't contribute to or cause a broken neck.
BTW, could you send me your wallet, I need to check the lining to see if you hide money from yourself
-
Stainless, sorry, I am still paying off my gas bill from Speedweek............... Hey, I still think you lifted it when you were here................... Sign me, Bob the Ranter................. :cheers:
-
Well Bill since you insist. It sucks we are stuck with "race" tires.
Fred
-
Look out, the damn bikers have hyjacked the thread......................... :-D
-
The Thompson video has a clear shot at clearance problems with extending helmets side supports.
Look at front leading edge of helmet, then at window net and draw a line to TOP roll cage. Then try to get out if
support rule was in effect keeping in mind that support should be in middle of helmet which is another thing wrong
with Thompson's car.
JL222
-
... and who is to say that Danny didn't loosed the belts "a little" after the starter tightened them. I speak from experience in saying every time I have made a pass, the seat belts hurt, and thats the way I want em.......................... He doesn't appear to be "hunched down" by the shoulder belts. Boy, that is a classic shot of how bad egress will be with the lateral restraints TO THE FRONT OF THE HELMET. Bob
-
Here's a video of the run and him getting out at the end. The new extention rule would make it even more difficult for him to get out.
Check out this video on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lvZ2rnCdXU&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Sent from my iPhone
-
Sorry to break the current topic guys. It is incredibly important and I am in sync with your thoughts. Maybe it is important enough for a thread all by itself? But this thread is rule changes and we have a couple of things going on here all at once. I would like to interupt for a brief moment and bring back the gas coupe radiator deal. I'll then go to the back of the line . . :-D
-
First my car never had a six cylinder in it. It came from the Ford Factory with a 260 V8 in 1964. They first put a 260 V8 in the Falcon series in the rounded 1963 Sprint model. My new 4 core radiator was a complete bolt in, no sheet metal was ever changed. LOL.Tom G.
My how time plays tricks with us, Tom. Since the Falcon had two optional engine lengths, (straight 6 or V-8) the factory punched two sets of holes in the fender wells of all cars for the radiators support. Since you had a V-8 you probably didn’t notice another set of holes further forward. They were there for the 6cyl option. When I installed my V-8 I kept the radiator in the forward position and installed a new 4 row core that was 3” thicker than the old one. I had so much room I even had to add a water pump spacer to the V-8 to get the fan closer to the radiator.
The point I was making is when a body has a 4, 6, or 8 cyl engine option there are different radiator positions built in at the factory. In later years that flexibility goes away because there may be only one engine for that OEM body and therefore only one radiator size. If you do an engine swap and need a bigger radiator the new rule prevents that. It is highly unlikely a larger radiator is an aero advantage. Maybe smaller, but not larger. Why did they make such a rule!
-
Saltfever,
Here is the answer to your question from another thread.
Tom G.
"Brian,
Mike is correct. If your replacement radiator is the same square inches or more as OEM you are good. The intent of this rule is to prevent the cutting down in height of a radiator or using a narrow core so that air flow in to the front of the car can be blocked by panels.
Mike's suggestion of #2 is a good solution.
DW"
PS. Since my Falcon was a V8 from the factory I never had a reason to look for the straight 6 radiator mounts. And yes they put both motors in the car, I was just lucky I bought a V8. LOL. Two good examples of how to do the same thing different ways.
-
Mike is correct. If your replacement radiator is the same square inches or more as OEM you are good. DW"[/font][/color]
Many thanks, Tom! What a difference two words makes! Now all I have to do is get an email from the car chief to confirm that. Putting this forum in the log book has little value when under the tarp at tech. Also, don't want to put Dan in another "SaltCat" brouhaha. :evil: Has the Chief Car Inspector been confirmed for the new year? Will Steve do it again?
-
Helmet Lateral Movement:
What does inclusive of structure deflection mean? “Structure” means steel tubing to me. It does not mean, padding, cushion, or dampening material. How much padding are we allowed?
NASCAR has spent $millions on R&D. Is our padding thickness less than NASCAR’s scientifically engineered solution? Does SCTA have engineering data showing LSR G-forces are less than NASCAR’s. In the absence of good data I prefer to trust an engineered NASCAR solution. (Assuming it can be installed in a manner you can exit the car with ease).
BTW, what happened to the bailout requirement. I can't find it in the rule book.
-
I just checked,,, the opening between my seats lateral head restraint (side to side) is 4.09 inches wider than my helmet.
So all I have to do is add a sliver of padding to be a 2" per side max movement.
And that is my concern, Charles. What will happen if your helmet wacks that steel structure at 30 or 40 Gs without any padding or just "a sliver" of padding? I am not clear on this rule. I want 2" or 3" of good padding plus free space. So how wide is my lateral structure? (2" of padding + 2" free space) x 2 + helmet width? Is that correct?
-
It's going to be funny when some of these board members and committee members realize they
have been ''hoisted by their own petard'' :-D
JL222 :cheers:
-
I just checked,,, the opening between my seats lateral head restraint (side to side) is 4.09 inches wider than my helmet.
So all I have to do is add a sliver of padding to be a 2" per side max movement.
And that is my concern, Charles. What will happen if your helmet wacks that steel structure at 30 or 40 Gs without any padding or just "a sliver" of padding? I am not clear on this rule. I want 2" or 3" of good padding plus free space. So how wide is my lateral structure? (2" of padding + 2" free space) x 2 + helmet width? Is that correct?
I thought I was clear, maybe not,,, I have 4.09" total or 2.045" per side clearance between my helmet and my seats lateral head supports. This is "from the helmet to the padding" The Padding is what NASCAR uses and is "BONDED" to the structure of the lateral supports. No extra user installed padding or foam or anything.
Charles
-
Charles, is it a 2010 Snell spec? They are suppose to be larger
-
Concerning the new radiator rule for Gas Coupes . . .
First I would like to thank DW and SCTA for making the rule changes public in advance of the release of the 2011 rule book. I fully appreciate the process and time to get the printed version of the rule book prepared, checked, printed and released for sale. Waiting until then to see the changes would make preparation for the 2011 season more difficult for all competitors.
I would also like to thank who ever came up with the new wording for the Gas Coupe Radiator requirement.
New rule wording - ‘A replacement radiator of the same height and width and mounted in the original location as OEM shall be used. Blocking of air flow through the radiator in front or behind is not allowed.’
I have no complaint with the new rule. Things change, stuff happens, life goes on, etc. . . .but I want to explain how this seemingly little change in words can impact existing cars and those already under construction.
As I have been fabricating my gas coupe I had wondered about the radiator requirements. The gas coupe I am putting together uses a Geo Metro body and a Honda Motorcycle engine driving the front wheels to run as a J/GC. The Geo OEM radiator mounts in the left front of the engine compartment. Under the previous rules it said . . . “A conventional automotive radiator shall be used in the stock location e.g. in front of the engine, behind the grille.” I had wondered exactly what an "automotive radiator" was and how you were supposed to determine if it was “conventional.” Would any radiator do if it had fins and tanks? Could a Motorcycle radiator be used? (is that ‘automotive’ or not?) What about a Radiator from an ATV or Snowmobile? Anyway, the new words don't include any reference to Automotive or Conventional.
I had also wondered . . . Could it be bigger or smaller than stock? - Could it be thicker than stock? The new wording certainly answers those questions although the jury is still out on ‘thicker’. . . .
I assumed that as long as it had a top and bottom tank and a set of fins it was a “Conventional Automotive Radiator.” And I also assumed that the size wasn’t an issue. So I was planning to run an ATV radiator behind the grille opening and to the left of the engine like the general location of the stock OEM Geo radiator. (same ‘original location’ as described in the old rules but not the exact same ‘OEM location’ as described in the new rules. ) It filled up the “hole” behind the grill next to the engine.
So, to get to the specific point . . with my car/engine combination I cannot meet this new requirement for radiator size and placement. . . The engine swap and the requirement to retain front wheel drive required that I mount the engine in a position where it just happens to take up some of the space best described as the spot where the “ radiator of the same height and width and mounted in the original location as OEM” would go.
Looks like I am switching to ALTERED. It's time to cover the headlight openings, block the grill opening, scrap the ATV radiator and use a water tank for cooling. Anybody want to buy a pair of Geo Metro LSI headlights?
-
The primary aerodynamic difference between a Gas Coupe and an Altered Coupe is the penalty a Gas Coupe pays for having air flowing through the radiator. There are others but this is the big one. Minimizing this penalty by definition puts you in Altered Coupe.
Here is an (incomplete) list of things that you can do to try to minimize the aero penalty of air going through your radiator:
Put a plate over the front of it
Put a plate over the back of it
Put a tank in front of it
Put a duct in front of it, redirecting the air
Mount it at an angle
Make it smaller with the resulting hole blocked off
Tape over the grill
Fill the fin area with a foreign substance
etc.......
all of the above (and more) will bump you to Altered or get you thrown out of impound if you arrive as a Gas Coupe.
We don't care if you make your radiator taller, wider or thicker, just not smaller. We don't care if you move it from the passenger side to the drivers side or vice-versa so long as you are paying the full penalty of the aero drag caused by the radiator airflow into the engine bay that is fundamental to a Gas Coupe. If you are not then you should be (by definition) in Altered Coupe.
-
If that is the case then:
A replacement radiator of the same height and width area (or larger) and mounted in the original location as OEM shall be used. Blocking of air flow thru the radiator in front or behind is not allowed.
Sounds simple to me and appears to be the original intent according to many commnets. However, another comment indicated the intent was to restrict the change in shape. Eg, instead of a square radiator and aero advantage may be gained by going to a retangular shape, both with the same area. I don't know how but a shorter height (due to the wide retangle shape) might be what the rule is trying to prevent. If that is the case then "same height and width" (or larger) would work but have the least negative impact on people.
-
We don't care if you make your radiator taller, wider or thicker, just not smaller. We don't care if you move it from the passenger side to the drivers side or vice-versa so long as you are paying the full penalty of the aero drag caused by the radiator airflow into the engine bay that is fundamental to a Gas Coupe. If you are not then you should be (by definition) in Altered Coupe............................................If this is true then that's what the new rule should say. Not "Same height and width". That's not rocket science. But a good example of how to write a rule that means one thing and says another. It should be corrected before going to the printers.
-
Well then . . if the rules allow . . I can install a radiator that has the same area as the OEM radiator (narrower but taller) and I can install ducting that would direct the air coming in through the original, stock opening in the front of the car (aka grille opening) and have all that air go through the radiator of the same area as the original. There is no aero advantage over the original radiator. Allthe air coming in the original grille will be passing thought the same number of square inches of radiator.
But - the new rules don't say 'same surface area.' They say the same 'height and width'.
The problem is that my engine (which sits next to the radiator opening) is covering some of the original width of the original radiator location. I have plenty of room below the original radiator bottom and a few inches above the original radiator top that I can fill up with a 'replacement radiator' with the same (or larger maybe) area.
With my front wheel drive setup I can't set the engine back to gain space for the OEM radiator height and width and location.
The Altered Class will be more fun anyway. Already looking into running Fuel. Anyone know someone producing one-piece tilt fiberglass front ends for a Geo Metro?
-
I think Mattel makes a vacu-form for large toys. That ought to fit............ :evil:
-
It was assumed (!) to be obvious that larger radiators were allowed as essentially none of the current cars use a stock or stock replacement sized radiator. As was mentioned earlier, how do you run a 800 HP motor in a car that originally had an 80 HP motor in it without replacing the radiator? This rule was expanded to address the problem of people trying to get around the radiator airflow "penalty" of the gas coupe class by somehow restricting/impeding the airflow through the engine bay.
I guess that old saying about ASSumptions was right...
Well then . . if the rules allow . . I can install a radiator ...... I can install ducting that would direct the air coming in through the original, stock opening in the front of the car ... that air go through the radiator of the same area as the original. There is no aero advantage over the original radiator. All the air coming in the original grille will be passing thought the same number of square inches of radiator.
Before you get to far ahead with that send a pic of what you want to do to the tech chair for Coupe & Sedan. In principle what you describe sounds OK but the devil is in the detals so pictures would be a good idea.
-
more than once, much to my dismay, I have cooled over 900 with a 18x22 radiator in 11 gallons of water and no air when I forgot to turn on the water circulation pump. :-D
-
. . . a good example of how to write a rule that means one thing and says another. It should be corrected before going to the printers.
Right on, Rich. The rule book goes to many countries in the world. Many of us don't have the privilege of rubbing elbows with someone at a club meeting or a board meeting. We have absolutely no way of ferreting out intent. All we can do is interpret the written word. I have seen records taken away . . . not because they were intentional cheaters but because they were cheated by the rule book. A naive assumption about ambiguous text is foolish and at your peril.
-
It was assumed (!) to be obvious that larger radiators were allowed as essentially none of the current cars use a stock or stock replacement sized radiator. As was mentioned earlier, how do you run a 800 HP motor in a car that originally had an 80 HP motor in it without replacing the radiator? This rule was expanded to address the problem of people trying to get around the radiator airflow "penalty" of the gas coupe class by somehow restricting/impeding the airflow through the engine bay.
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''It is assumed to be obvious that larger radiators were allowed when the rule clearly states same height and width. Just who would assume that? That makes as much sense as assuming you meant white was OK when you required black. I just don't understand the thought processes that would assume "Same height and width" means any size as long as it's bigger.............................I don't know why my part is min the quote. I can't seem to get it out.
-
"All this bickering back and forth and all this rule change banter has me wondering a few things . . .
1. Am I even Legal to run a SCTA event ?"
Charles -- I'm sure Joe Timney can give your car the once-over -- after all, doesn't the ECTA use basically the same rules as the SCTA?
"2. Should I even plan on spending a ton of cash to get me, the crew and the car to the salt?"
How big a crew do you need. More than one or two helpers on a car like yours can be excessive. One or two can remember to do the things needed. And two or three guys can travel at the same expense as one when towing. Generous me even allows them to fill up the tank once in a while, since they're getting to go themselves. I pay the entry, they get the free passes. I even give them the ugly T-Shirts. And two or three can usually stay in the same room at no extra cost.
"3. Do I want to be "bashed" on how my car is built ?"
Don't know why you'd feel that way, especially if you get it okey-doaked ahead of time. Few cars cannot be fixed on site with minor problems and/or given speed limits if they can't be fixed. Hardly anyone is sent away. Even if you can't run, it's still the real thing. Come on out and play in the bigs this year.
Stan Back
-
Charles, is it a 2010 Snell spec? They are suppose to be larger
Sparky, nope that was my Bell SA2005 I used to measure,,, I think you are correct, the SAH2010 that I have picked out is a larger shell, so that solves my .0045 " per side problem.
Charles
-
Lateral movement:
The seat or roll cage structure shall provide restriction to lateral head movement of less than 2 in. per side inclusive of structure deflection
Plain and simple . . . Please just tell me: HOW MUCH PADDING CAN I HAVE ON EACH SIDE?
-
would be intresing to know the two makes and models to be able to know just how much difference there is between 05 an 10 :-o
-
Sparky, about $500 I figure :-D
-
Some of the new rules wording intended to clarify issues can raise new questions.
Looking at the new rule that talks about engine size . . . ."In classes where not all engine breaks are available, the smallest displacement class allowed is open to all engine displacements that fall within it and below it."
Hummm . . . Think about the Classic Category. There are no Classic classes for engines smaller than engine Class F. For example there is no such class as H/CFALT. In the past (I think) a car that is otherwise fully compliant with all the classic rules but running an engine smaller than Class F would run in the Modified Category.
So, under this new rule what category would a Fuel Altered classic car with a class H engine run in, F/CFALT or H/FALT, or either?
Just wondering . . .
Funny thing about this is that someone running a G or smaller engine in an F class Classic car can actually have a chance to set a record in Class F. Looks like a case of "Running Up in Class" has broken out on the west coast. :-D
-
I think that new engine break is referring to a Thermodynamic cycle other than Otto. It doesn't change anything for typical recip engines, no?
I just reread it and now I'm not sure. It looks like the entire Section 2 on Engines is speaking to nonreciprocating engines. First paragraph mentions nonreciprocating engines with some examples following. Fourth paragraph is about Omega Engines using a thermodynamic cycle other than Otto with all the breaks following. Then, all by itself, the sentence you mention. Is it referring to all of the above, or does it stand alone and refer to reciprocating engines as well?
If the latter, then can you run a XF,XXF, XO engine in Classic?
-
I just checked,,, the opening between my seats lateral head restraint (side to side) is 4.09 inches wider than my helmet.
So all I have to do is add a sliver of padding to be a 2" per side max movement.
Charles
Charles does the padding and support extend to the furthermost edge of the helmet and if it did how much room
will that leave you to get out?
I believe that when the majority of SCTA and BNI members read this new rule and start to measure distance from
support to roll bar and realize that they will not be able to get in their vehicles with a hans device on [let alone get out]
the sh..t is going to hit the 10,000 cfm fan :-D
JL222
-
Saltfever, Not to go off subject, but that's one sexual picture in your avatar. Tony
-
I'm following your example, Tony and changing things up a bit. But I can't hold a candle to your avitar. You set a high very standard :-D
-
I am about to "can opener" a hole thru the roof to get in and out of the car. Maybe I can prefect the John Force "butt slide" coming out.
The good news is that if you and I both lose 150 lbs., we may be able to egress the car in, oh, say two minutes give or take........................... Bob
So how do you get out if the car is on it's roof
Otto VonBismark once said "the less people know about how sausages and laws are made, the better off they will be
Otto was also famous for saying "if the Herring was the only fish in the sea, it would still be the best."
and that's why they call them Bismark herrings.
Can we hear some complaining from the bike guys now :roll:
:-D
Bill
Ahhh
Looking for stuff to complain about. Oh yes, racing tyres :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:
G (bike guy)
-
. . . . . Then, all by itself, the sentence you mention. Is it referring to all of the above, or does it stand alone and refer to reciprocating engines as well?
If the latter, then can you run a XF,XXF, XO engine in Classic?
Honest answer is that I really don't know for sure. But it appears to me that the only part of the new rules that applies to Omega and is the stuff about swept volume factor to adjust the 'displacement' of rotaries. BTW the factor in 2010 was (is) x3.
So I think the sentence . . ."In classes where not all engine breaks are available, the smallest displacement class allowed is open to all engine displacements that fall within it and below it." applies to all engines, recip, omega, rotary, whatever . . .
I do not think that this implies that XF, XXF, XO, XXO or V4 or even V4F can run in the smallest displacement class. Somebody correct this if I am wrong, but, I thought the the vintage engines were always allowed to run in Classic but they run in the class that matches their engine displacement. Example - I think a 74 Mustang gas coupe with a 239 cubic inch flathead V8 engine would be in E/CGC and not XF/CGC. Why not F/CGC you ask, . . . because a 239 cubic inch engine is bigger than "all engine displacements that fall within it and below it." where for Classic 'it' is F class with a maximum engine displacement of 183.99 cubic inches.
Humm. . . I just re-read what I have typed above and I can probably say for sure that this is an example of why I would be the wrong guy to re-write the rules. Heaven bless those willing to be rules writers.
-
What happens with cars such as my vega that would be in Classic category if powered with a later engine is that they simply run as a Gas coup or altered without the Classic sub heading. No break is given for pre '84 body styles. Of course pre '49 bodys run in Vintage coup. So my Vega with a late model V8 is a "Classic Altered" With a GMC it's just an Altered
-
I wish to once again address the Radiator rule for Gas coup. It would seem apparent that the rule revision as now written is not what the rule makers wanted to say. It is my hope and belief that someone who can, will change the wording to include "a minimum of" or "no smaller than" or something like that to properly express the intent of the rule. As it is now written it will just be a headache for as long as it exists explaning to people that the very clear instructions in the rule book don't mean what they say. If rewriting the radiator rule had been a 7th grade English test the SCTA would have received an "F".
-
. . . . . Then, all by itself, the sentence you mention. Is it referring to all of the above, or does it stand alone and refer to reciprocating engines as well?
If the latter, then can you run a XF,XXF, XO engine in Classic?
Honest answer is that I really don't know for sure. But it appears to me that the only part of the new rules that applies to Omega and is the stuff about swept volume factor to adjust the 'displacement' of rotaries. BTW the factor in 2010 was (is) x3.
So I think the sentence . . ."In classes where not all engine breaks are available, the smallest displacement class allowed is open to all engine displacements that fall within it and below it." applies to all engines, recip, omega, rotary, whatever . . .
I do not think that this implies that XF, XXF, XO, XXO or V4 or even V4F can run in the smallest displacement class. Somebody correct this if I am wrong, but, I thought the the vintage engines were always allowed to run in Classic but they run in the class that matches their engine displacement. Example - I think a 74 Mustang gas coupe with a 239 cubic inch flathead V8 engine would be in E/CGC and not XF/CGC. Why not F/CGC you ask, . . . because a 239 cubic inch engine is bigger than "all engine displacements that fall within it and below it." where for Classic 'it' is F class with a maximum engine displacement of 183.99 cubic inches.
Humm. . . I just re-read what I have typed above and I can probably say for sure that this is an example of why I would be the wrong guy to re-write the rules. Heaven bless those willing to be rules writers.
You need to read this in context in the rule book. It is located in section 2.0 under the heading Engine Class Break section and applies to that section only. Vintage engines are not even discussed in that section. They are introduced and defined within their own section entirely (2.1).
"In classes where not all engine breaks are available, the smallest displacement class allowed is open to all engine displacements that fall within it and below it." refers ONLY to AA through K.
This rule simply means that if a certain class stops at G (for example) it has the effect of redefining the lower limit of the G class (again, just an example) to "up to 183.99 CID" from the current "123.00 to 189.99 CID" that it would be without this change. It has no effect on vintage engines at all.
Regarding "running up" in classes, remember Section 1B remains in full effect: "ALL VEHICLES WILL RUN ONLY IN THE LOWEST PRIMARY CLASS FOR WHICH THEY ARE LEGAL."
-
I wish to once again address the Radiator rule for Gas coup. It would seem apparent that the rule revision as now written is not what the rule makers wanted to say. It is my hope and belief that someone who can, will change the wording to include "a minimum of" or "no smaller than" or something like that to properly express the intent of the rule.
The process for changing the wording on that rule has already been put in motion but it has to go through the board hence the reason it has not been changed already.
If rewriting the radiator rule had been a 7th grade English test the SCTA would have received an "F".
On behalf of all the people who freely volunteer huge amounts of time to make it possible for you to race, I want to thank you for your continued support. I hope we didn't inconvenience you too much.
/-{@}-\
-
:evil: Rich, I believe you definitely qualify for a member of Joe Law's race team this morning! :-D ---lol
-
It's good to know that the dedicated people who volunteer their time to work on the rule book and all the other things necessary, can accept a little constructive criticism. Printing the rule in the book to say what it means will save those dedicated souls lots of time in the future.
-
It's good to know that the dedicated people who volunteer their time to work on the rule book and all the other things necessary, can accept a little constructive criticism.
For criticism to be elevated to the level of "constructive" it needs to actually be submitted to the SCTA for consideration. Otherwise it's just whining. :-D
-
For criticism to be elevated to the level of "constructive" it needs to actually be submitted to the SCTA for consideration. Otherwise it's just whining. :-D
True enough . . . but if you think about it, isn't it a good idea to air some of these views/questions/observations in a forum like this as an initial step? I post to this forum on a somewhat regular basis and often ask about or comment on the meaning of some of the rules. Virtually every time I have put something out here other board participants with more knowledge/experience (i.e. Fox, Steele, Stan, Slim and others) chime in and either confirm my point or indicate where I am missing some facts. I find this very helpful and maybe someone else reading the posts is also helped by the exchanges.
I can imagine the irritation that would be felt by the various SCTA rules committee folks if I sent in a letter or email to them with every little question.
It is important to try to take care in posting about rules to avoid criticizing the rule makers and rule book writers. Admittedly sometimes the line gets blurred when we try to mix in a little humor.
-
I just checked,,, the opening between my seats lateral head restraint (side to side) is 4.09 inches wider than my helmet.
So all I have to do is add a sliver of padding to be a 2" per side max movement.
Charles
Charles does the padding and support extend to the furthermost edge of the helmet and if it did how much room
will that leave you to get out?
I believe that when the majority of SCTA and BNI members read this new rule and start to measure distance from
support to roll bar and realize that they will not be able to get in their vehicles with a hans device on [let alone get out]
the sh..t is going to hit the 10,000 cfm fan :-D
JL222
JL222,
I will try to take some pics tomorrow or Saturday,,, I may even suit up and do an exit drill and show the "bail out procedure"
However, each car and cage/seat set up will differ as will Hans vs Hybrid Pro and other approved HNR's...
But for the sake of helping all of us car guys,, I will post the video (as long as it don't look to embarrassing (my big 370 lbs exiting the car may be amusing to you folks)
Charles
-
It's good to know that the dedicated people who volunteer their time to work on the rule book and all the other things necessary, can accept a little constructive criticism.
For criticism to be elevated to the level of "constructive" it needs to actually be submitted to the SCTA for consideration. Otherwise it's just whining. :-D
Who is whining now? Apparently the criticism posted here achieved the goal desired. Changing a poorly written rule into what will hopefully be a better one. If your feelings were hurt in the process, so be it. Sometimes happens in construction.
-
Well folks, its time for a commercial pitch.
If you appreciate this OPEN forum which is allowing us early access to the new rules, and allowing us to bitch, moan, whine, and attempt to understand and digest this information, then GET OFF YOUR Acura AND CONTRIBUTE TO LANDRACING .COM.
Just imagine getting this info around March and how frenzied us unstable ones would be.
I again want to laud Dan Warner for stepping up to the plate and keeping his cool (he must chug Maalox and take handfulls of anti-anxiety pills) to stay sane.
Also, kudo's to JR (who's name I don't know) for standing up to the heat.
Hopefully you both had SFI 20 boots on.
Although we don't yet have the answer's, at least we know that the Rules Committee is aware of the concerns and anxiety of those affected.
And to my co-whiners, we could probably use a class in political correctness, but heck, we have Salt in our veins and are all pashionate about our sport. I thank you guys for stepping up to the plate.
Let's all take Dan's advice, and see if we can come up with something better.
Now, about those da-n lateral helmet extensions.......................@$?@&** Bob
-
It's good to know that the dedicated people who volunteer their time to work on the rule book and all the other things necessary, can accept a little constructive criticism.
For criticism to be elevated to the level of "constructive" it needs to actually be submitted to the SCTA for consideration. Otherwise it's just whining. :-D
Apparently the criticism posted here achieved the goal desired. Changing a poorly written rule into what will hopefully be a better one. If your feelings were hurt in the process, so be it. Sometimes happens in construction.
Hopefully their taking a look at the helmet support rule, I'm sure it was written with good intentions but I don't think everyone
that voted realized the problems with exit room. If you look at different cars and pickups in the rule book [you can see some helmets] one can see with the new helmet support rule that a lot of vehicles it will not work. On my Ford Ranger placing the helmet at top BACK of seat only leaves 13 1/2'' to middle edge of steering wheel and 11''to bottom 17 '' to door frame. Most of us are a bit larger than that some way larger :-D
-
Without a doubt this qualifies as "PROOF reading" now whether it is 86 or 100 proof remains to be seen!
-
It's good to know that the dedicated people who volunteer their time to work on the rule book and all the other things necessary, can accept a little constructive criticism.
For criticism to be elevated to the level of "constructive" it needs to actually be submitted to the SCTA for consideration. Otherwise it's just whining. :-D
I have been contemplating sending an e-mail to rule various board members and committe chairs about the helmet support problem but when they get around to measuring their vehicles the rule will probably be changed. If not let them deal with it.
JL222
-
You need to read this in context in the rule book. It is located in section 2.0 under the heading Engine Class Break section and applies to that section only. . .
Good point, JR. Once it is part of the correct section in the rule book the format alone will add clarity. Right now we are reading paragraphs that follow in sequence but not numerically because many paragraphs don’t have any changes.
By the way, the bolding of headings and the readability of the printed layout shows that someone really did take a lot of time and care to do a nice job. It couldn’t have been done any better.
-
Ok so I went to our local hardware store and they have lexan and such for windows. In the rule book does it say any specified thickness? They had quite a selection.
TIA
Clay
-
Just a suggestion. If you're buying Lexan, Margard is the better choice for our applications. It's Lexan treated with a scratch resistant coating which leaves it usable for a much longer time. When cleaning any of the plastics it is best to flood them with soapy water first.
Pete
-
It's good to know that the dedicated people who volunteer their time to work on the rule book and all the other things necessary, can accept a little constructive criticism.
For criticism to be elevated to the level of "constructive" it needs to actually be submitted to the SCTA for consideration. Otherwise it's just whining. :-D
Who is whining now? Apparently the criticism posted here achieved the goal desired. Changing a poorly written rule into what will hopefully be a better one. If your feelings were hurt in the process, so be it. Sometimes happens in construction.
I can think of other easier and much more effective ways of achieving your "goal" and those methods don't have anywhere near the negative fallout but if you want to keep doing it this way then that's fine by me. And thanks for your concern about my feelings but they are just fine, not even bruised. :-P
-
Clay, in my opinion, I would think you would want it at least as thick as the stock glass so that it would work with you window channels in the door.
Obviously, the thicker it is the harder it will be to form the curves, but you don't want it so thin that you have to add bracing to prevent deflection.
You might start by physically testing the deflection of each thickness with your hand, say about 10" in from the edge............................ bob
-
I have a question/comment...
After the rule changes are decided by the board, do they go back to the clubs for comment on the final wording?
While Rich seemed to pissoff JR, he had a valid point. Vetting the wording through the folks that read them because it concerns them is not a bad idea before they are published. The process would have left ambiguous wording in the book for the all of us that were not present to know the intent for at least a year.
I hope we can all can continue to have constructive conversations on the rules without letting the emotions driven by the thought of a possible major change cloud the issues.
While we know the board is basically trying to keep us safe, it often scares the shit out of us because we misread the intent of the changes
Dan or JR, please chime in
-
For criticism to be elevated to the level of "constructive" it needs to actually be submitted to the SCTA for consideration. Otherwise it's just whining. :-D
I submitted a Rule change request the very last day that one was allowed in 2010 for the 2011 rule book. Since I did not have a great deal of time to go into specific details on what specifically should be changed, I recommended my suggestion go to the Roadster Committee for their input on what I thought was wrong with the class. This is the email I received back.
Thank you for your rule book change submission. This is the only confirmation email you will receive. You will be contacted by an SCTA representative shortly.
Thank you for being a part of the LSR community.
Name: Tom G.
Address: xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
City: xxxxxxxxxx
State:xxxxxxxx
Zip Code: xxxxxxxxx
Home Phone: xxxxxxxxxx
Email Address: xxxxxxxxxxxx
Cell Phone: 000-000-0000
SCTA Membership - SCTA: checked
Issue: Where is the Roadster? On some vehicles that run in the modified Roadster classes both front engine and rear engine classes, you cannot tell where and what the roadster body is. Any more all you can see is the sides of the body. The turttle decks you cannot even see with all the streamlining of the parachute packs, wing mounts, etc.
Rulebook Section: 5.B
Rulebook Page No: 50
Desired Outcome: To keep the vintage class bodies looking original, and not looking like lakesters.
Reason for Chg: Some of the newer Modified Roadsters both front and rear engined are looking more like Lakesters than Roadsters. When looking at some cars you cannot see some of the stock panels that are required to be there. This is not a Lakester class, but it is sure changing into one, when one is allowed to cover up stock panels for more aero packages.
Side Effects: Some roadster owners would have to change some panels on their cars. Some would have to change wing mounts etc.
Desired Rulebook Wording: I would like to see this problem brought up to the attention of the Roadster Committee for review. And for them to bring the classes back into line with wording they deem appropriate to keep this a true vintage body class.
I was never contacted by an SCTA Rep to discuss my rule change. The phone number I submitted has an answer machine, and my email address is still good. I heard my suggestion offered a "brief comedic moment" at the rules meeting. Every rule change proposal ended up either saying "Passed, Denied, Withdrawn, Sent back to committee, Recommended to Board, Recommended to Aero Committee, but mine was the only one that said No Solution.
So what did I learn from this experience? First, don't wait until the last minute to put in a rule change. Second, don't suggest what you are asking for consideration, to go back to a Car Class committee for review, since I was never contacted to discuss my point of view. Third, Be very specific on what exactly you want changed, and why. Forth, Be proactive and email, and call the head of your Car Class, to make sure they know and understand you point of view.
If this post only helps one person writing a rule change, I have accomplished at least something, and all my time was not a total waste.
Tom G.
-
Tom, check my post #172 on page 12. I still feel this is the way it should be. Bob
-
Stainless...like the vague wording on helmet side supports ''from front edge of helmet. Is the measurement taken by placing helmet at back of seat or on driver sitting in car? Adds 1/2'' -1 1/2'' to measurement according to head position in my case.
JL222
-
Another couple of good ideas.
Stainless, you and the others on this board go ahead and vet all the changes as to sentence structure, wording, impact, etc. I will hold the book until you are happy. I will tell the board tomorrow night that the rulebook is being held.
Tom, you figured out why there was no credence given your "suggestion". There was no suggestion, just a statement that someone else should take a look at the problem. As a matter of fact the roadster committee had passed around several change requests for consideration before the meeting. This was done more than once so that the change would be as easy as possible.
Thanks all,
DW
-
I can think of other easier and much more effective ways of achieving your "goal" and those methods don't have anywhere near the negative fallout . . .
I'm always interested in a better way that fosters good communication and understanding. Even if it is not easier . . . a clear understanding will cost me less! :-D What are you suggesting, JR?
-
Stainless, you and the others on this board go ahead and vet all the changes as to sentence structure, wording, impact, etc.
DW
I'm estatic! I thought I was just a lowly forum member and Dan has elevated me to board status. This is progressing nicely :-D :-D
-
Mayor, If you please, hold up theirs if you like, but I would like to recieve mine as the Christmas gift that you have already given us by hustling it through the process.. thanks again!
-
Tom, you figured out why there was no credence given your "suggestion". There was no suggestion, just a statement that someone else should take a look at the problem.
That is all fine and dandy. Maybe "You will be contacted by an SCTA representative shortly" should be taken out of the SCTA response. Would make for less hostility when they don't do what they say they will.
If there was "no suggestion" in what I sent in to SCTA, why was it even considered or put on the agenda to discuss.
It should have been returned to me saying insufficient information for a rule change request.
I thought the Roaster Committee was the source for all the Roadster complaints. So what better group could I have gone to for their opinion and their advise for correcting something that they know is out of control.
The good new out of all of this is that I was not the only one who thinks the Modified Roadster Classes are out of control, and we have some new rules that will go into effect in the new rule book, that address what my rule change was all about, even if it was labeled No Solution.
Tom G.
-
Going back to what Dan said, I think the challange he made is fair: Lets see if any of us can come up with better verbage for how to work with the rules to make them more concise and easy to understand to all of us. Remember that the rules have been made.
The challenge is to make it so a newby can pick up the book and have few if any questions after reading the rule.
One problem we will face is the same one our rules committee faces with every proposed new rule, how do we make the rule broad enough to cover all the classes necessary and still simple to understand.
My first suggestion would be more sketch's such as the current roll cage diagrams. I think that a lot of us panic when we read terms such as "inclusive of structure deflection" out of our current rule book.
That one three word phrase sums up what I feel is wrong with our rule book.
I know a few lawyers who would have to stop and think if they read that.
"Make it simple" needs to define our book. It is well put together, just not understandable by the masses (dat be us).
As far as amending the new rules (if possible), I suggest we spell out our concerns as to the new rules first, with a straight forward statement on how our vehicle or class is affected.
Then list how you feel the rule could be changed or modified while keeping in mind that the rule is not going to be recinded, it is here to stay.
AS an example, either John or Troy Langlo made a suggestion that the head restraint rule say something like " the rules commitee highly recomends the lateral head restraint continue to the forward plane of the drivers helmet".
My suggestion would be to leave the current rule as stated, but add "except for where entrant can show tech inspectors that egress from the drivers compartment would be greatly hindered or not possible in a reasonable amoujnt of time".
Remember, the rules commitee is made up of racers, and should be adressed with the same dignity and respect that you would like to receive from them.
We can make this thing better if we all show a little patience and respect for each other.
Bob Drury
'
'
-
Bitch, Bitch, Bitch.
Tom -- you've had some impact on the RMR Roadster rules. Can't you read? At least 35% of some of it should now resemble a roadster. Of course, the 50% forward part doesn't have to. And that's the way you wanted it all along, right? So what if they look like pregnant lakesters? So what if some of them look like the driver is turning the front axle with his feet? You don't have one (do you)? All's well that ends well. Let's be more specific next time. Like gas caps on Model A's. Stuff like that. You know, 20 years from now, there probably won't be anyone who can define a roadster (and, as you know, we can't even do it now).
NSP said not to post this late.
Stan Back
-
If anyone has watched the NHRA pro-stock cars you might have noticed the retaining tabs for their lexan door windows [their is usually a good shot after the burnout when they open the doors blowing the smoke out]
These tabs mount on the inside roll bar which will further restrict exiting.
The tabs are recommend by one of the manufactures to prevent blowout.
JL222
-
John, I think if it was me, I would make a template of the existing door glass curvature and bandsaw or lazer cut perimiter pieces out of half inch aluminum. I would then tig weld that to a bottom mounting flange which is well gusseted and bolt it through the top of the inner door panel. You might even run braces on down to the bottom of the inner door.
Next, I would drill and tap that perimiter bar on about 2" centers. I think I would also use fender washers between the bolt heads and lexan...................... Bob
-
Another couple of good ideas.
Stainless, you and the others on this board go ahead and vet all the changes as to sentence structure, wording, impact, etc. I will hold the book until you are happy. I will tell the board tomorrow night that the rulebook is being held.
Tom, you figured out why there was no credence given your "suggestion". There was no suggestion, just a statement that someone else should take a look at the problem. As a matter of fact the roadster committee had passed around several change requests for consideration before the meeting. This was done more than once so that the change would be as easy as possible.
Thanks all,
DW
Dan I know this is more work for you than I can imagine, and I appreciate your efforts. I put in my rule change request on
SCTA highly recommending hans type devices instead of requiring them and I can live with the new rule and the lexan rule.
I hope that the helmet support rule be put on hold for a year like the hans device [ remember that the devices were modified
after the date of my rule request]. There is going to be a lot of problems with smaller cars, the helmet support rule and room
getting in and out .
I would recommend that the helmet support be what a Nascar seat would be [not sure but about eye cutout in helmet]
after all Nascar deals with a lot more crashes than we do and some involve being t-boned. That should be good enough for us.
I have an idea this ruling was made after viewing the Danny Thompson video, but dang his seat belts were mounted to high which
allowed him to move foward -up and down more than normal and on top of that they were not as tight as they should have been.
I hope you don't take these criticisms personally as I consider you one of my best SCTA friends and the wording part has got to be a real bitch.
JL222 :cheers:
-
I noticed that if I extend my side helmet support forward to where it is even with the front of the helmet, I will lose a good amount of peripheral vision. This may cause loss of spatial orientation. It also might impact on the eye shield. I ran my support to the edge of the eye hole on my helmet just for that reason. Maybe someone could take another look at that rule.
I appreciate all the work done on the rule book. The SCTA has got to be one of the best racing associations in the world. Thanks.
Harvey
-
That is all fine and dandy. Maybe "You will be contacted by an SCTA representative shortly" should be taken out of the SCTA response. Would make for less hostility when they don't do what they say they will.
If there was "no suggestion" in what I sent in to SCTA, why was it even considered or put on the agenda to discuss.
It should have been returned to me saying insufficient information for a rule change request.
I thought the Roaster Committee was the source for all the Roadster complaints. So what better group could I have gone to for their opinion and their advise for correcting something that they know is out of control.
The good new out of all of this is that I was not the only one who thinks the Modified Roadster Classes are out of control, and we have some new rules that will go into effect in the new rule book, that address what my rule change was all about, even if it was labeled No Solution.
Tom G.
Bitch, Bitch, Bitch.
Stan Back
Thanks Stan,
Your right, don't mean to sound huffy, so I will adjust my tone. If I have offended anyone personally I apologize, and am sorry, as this was not directed at any one person. I have been trying to modify my post but for some reason the edit or modify tab has disappeared. So once again, if I have offended anyone I apologize, as that was not my intent. My intent was to save someone from making the same mistake I did, and to point out things that need to be improved, or addressed in the organization.
Tom G.
-
Rule Changes - From my personal experience with the RMRoadster body requirements.
I found the process to be lengthy, frustrating but informative as well. My experience would indicate that the current SCTA Rules Change Procedure does work. After questioning a couple of the Tech people and e-mailing Russ Eyeres I submitted a request for change to SCTA. After more e-mailing the request for minimizing the current trend for shrouding the rear deck of the class required body was incorporated into other submitted thoughts on preserving what is the defining part of the class - the roadster body itself, the rule went to the committee then a Club Representative vote and on to the SCTA Board for final approval. My original "bitch" was just after Speed Week 2009. I can't say enough about how much help getting through the process came from Russ and the Roadster Committee. The final Rule leaves a good bit more covered body work than I had hoped for but it at least gives some ground rules. - Pat Kinne
-
Pat, I am in agreement with you. Back whien I was part of and chairman of the roadster committee I had a hard time with the guys who thought all roadsters were built by Boyd and we should allow those interpretations in our classes. In the back of my mind (what little there is left of it) I knew these body were going to occur once the Association allowed rear engine roadsters.
We allow too many changes now for original body lines in all the roadster classes and their relationship to all the other parts to each other (some how that disappeared). Only a few real 34's are left with the correct lines. Thanks to their builder the fastest one is correct....JD
-
Clay, in my opinion, I would think you would want it at least as thick as the stock glass so that it would work with you window channels in the door.
Obviously, the thicker it is the harder it will be to form the curves, but you don't want it so thin that you have to add bracing to prevent deflection.
You might start by physically testing the deflection of each thickness with your hand, say about 10" in from the edge............................ bob
Thanks Bob for the advice, i will try it.
Clay
-
Just a suggestion. If you're buying Lexan, Margard is the better choice for our applications. It's Lexan treated with a scratch resistant coating which leaves it usable for a much longer time. When cleaning any of the plastics it is best to flood them with soapy water first.
Pete
Good Point Pete, until you mentioned that, I did not think about that, thanks for mentioning it.
Clay
-
As I recall, a camel is a horse designed by a committee. :evil: :cheers: :cheers:
Doug
-
On the Lateral Head Restraints new rule.
Even though "I Think I am in compliance" and will not need to make any changes if the rule stays written as is...
I do agree with many others that the rule and it's wording should be looked at again. I also agree that if you are belted in the seat properly, your belts are mounted properly and you are wearing an approved HNR properly, then the drivers side lateral head restraint need only come out as far as the beginning edge of the eye hole (face shield area of the helmet) or around approx 60% of the distance from back of the helmet shell to leading edge of chin bar.
This would allow you "easier" ingress and egress from the car over the current rule wording and provide the needed lateral protection.
If the Thompson video had an influence on the rule and or it's wording, I do agree with other posters about the need to revisit the rule and it's wording and to make sure the driver can exit the car. The video shows that that seat had no shoulder side supports, no or very minimal lateral head side supports. little rib and hip side supports and it "seemed" as if the shoulder belts mounted a bit to high and also "seemed" as if the belts "may not" have been as tight as they could or should have been!!. So maybe the rules folks should consider better wording or as other posters have mentioned making this "strongly reccommended" not required or re word the spec for now.
Charles
-
For the most part, I am the type of guy I try and comply with the rules, and try and meet the requirements and try to do it with little or no discussion.
One thing that I have noticed, and by all means this DOES NOT imply to anyone or team personally, its just what I have observed from my own work environment, drag racing, and life in general.
I think many times we as racers and humans get our minds set in one particular path, know how we want to do things and we don't want to deviate from it. Just today for example, I took my engine to my engine builder, we spoke of the engine, and he told me 3 Simple tips that apply to my engine in gaining HP that I never would have even thought of on my own, but still keeping me in the same class. But because he has done research, he had the facts and figures to prove his findings, its hard to argue with black and white facts on paper. Me personally I don't like the idea of going to lexan, simply because I just spent a boot load of money on tinting, but because of my own stupidity I should have looked more into it, but I didn't. Simply put: Lesson learned!
I think rules in classes is the same way. Yes it does cost alot of money, but you figure it this way. If I have to purchase and use a head restraint and it will assist me in being around to raise my kids, and being with my wife its well worth it.
Just some thoughts
As I said before this is just my opinion, and I am not implying it to anyone or anything in particular.
TIA
Clay
-
This is what got done this evening:
See added words in red to the Gas Coupe radiator change:
A replacement radiator of the same height and width, or larger and mounted in the original location as OEM shall be used. Blocking of air flow thru the radiator in front or behind is not allowed.
I got a commitment to have a spec for the window safety film in two weeks.
I asked for a one year delay on the helment support issue. I did not get that but, I did get the same two week commitment for a revisit on the change.
Thats all I was able to get so, hang tight for a couple of weeks and we will see what shakes out.
DW
-
This is what got done this evening:
See added words in red to the Gas Coupe radiator change:
A replacement radiator of the same height and width, or larger and mounted in the original location as OEM shall be used. Blocking of air flow thru the radiator in front or behind is not allowed.
I got a commitment to have a spec for the window safety film in two weeks.
I asked for a one year delay on the helment support issue. I did not get that but, I did get the same two week commitment for a revisit on the change.
Thats all I was able to get so, hang tight for a couple of weeks and we will see what shakes out.
DW
THANKS a whole bunch Dan that might really help on the supports, and thanks for trying on the delay :cheers:
Is there any one or persons we should call our email?
JL222
Meetings getting over early these days, I remember leaving Anaheim at midnight and getting home in Santa Ynes at 3:30 AM
course we had to bench race and down a few after :roll:
-
John,
Don Ferguson III, D3, is going to contact Lee Kennedy and Steve Davies to see what can be done in the short term. Lets let Don do his thing and see what happens.
DW
-
.
-
DW,
Thanks for all you do... what an advocate you are for the folks on this forum and LSR in general.
Keep up the great work.
Charles
-
Dan and Board. Well done. Thank you.
-
I got a commitment to have a spec for the window safety film in two weeks.
DW
Dan -
Wow - just - Wow.
I remember looking for film last summer in anticipation of running this year. When I came across what was available in the auto stores, I suspected that it was going to be of little value. I ran 130 club last year, so it wasn't an issue. A spec, without having to name a specific brand, is great news for everybody.
Thank you.
Chris
-
Dan, you are "THE MAN"!
In this day and age, most in your position would say "I'll show those dumb bast--ds".
Your's is not a enviable position, but I sure am glad we have you there, and you don't ever let us drive you out!
Also, I hope that old crust, Glen Barrett, who has cleverly remained silent throughot this, is never allowed to escape the asylum at the three mile.
Well I have to get ready to watch Oregon "California A-- Kickers" get ready to beat Auburn, er the Beavers, so you guys are on your own.
Sign me, Proud to be a ex-Duck (got a pink slip after two terms)
Bob
-
Dan, you are "THE MAN"!
In this day and age, most in your position would say "I'll show those dumb bast--ds".
Your's is not a enviable position, but I sure am glad we have you there, and you don't ever let us drive you out!
Also, I hope that old crust, Glen Barrett, who has cleverly remained silent throughot this, is never allowed to escape the asylum at the three mile.
Well I have to get ready to watch Oregon "California A-- Kickers" get ready to beat Auburn, er the Beavers, so you guys are on your own.
Sign me, Proud to be a ex-Duck (got a pink slip after two terms)
Bob
Quack Quack Quack :cheers:
-
Dan,
I am very interested in the helmet restraint issue. The way the rule is written, it is likely my car will not comply with out a major rebuild. my cockpit is very tight and was made that way to keep yours truly from flopping around in there. we even made sure that my head/helmet was restrained. quite frankly the set up in my car will do a better job of restraint than any HNRS on the market. again, the way the rule has been changed i would have to use an SFI certified device. any such device will not fit in my cockpit and even if it would, i would not be able to exit. seems to me like there has been some over reaction. i support the concept, just not the application as written in the new rule. let me know if i can be of any help.
-
in my car will do a better job of restraint than any HNRS on the market. again, the way the rule has been changed i would have to use an SFI certified device. any such device will not fit in my cockpit and even if it would, i would not be able to exit. seems to me like there has been some over reaction. i support the concept, just not the application as written in the new rule. let me know if i can be of any help.
We need to keep the issues clear. First, the HNRS has not been raised as an issue in this thread. We were told about its possible implementation two years ago and 1 year ago it was announced to be mandatory in 2011. That is hardly an unreasonable approach by SCTA. Many used the HNRS all of last year. Most of the comments in this thread are about the new lateral movement rule “at a minimum extend to the forward most portion of the helmet”. That is not an SFI spec. It is SCTA’s modification to the existing lateral movement requirement that has been in effect since last year and is probably why your system is as you describe. All you have to do is extend your lateral supports to the end of your helmet. Repeat: that is not SFI but a new SCTA rule change. In many cases welding an extension will solve the problem (if there is space for it)!The discussion is hardly an overreaction. Using words like that just polarizes people and accomplishes nothing. Just as in your case, this change will make egress virtually impossible for many cars! It is quite possible that the full implication of this change was missed by SCTA and we want to be sure the comsequences are fully understood.
PS: In some cases the HNRS, in conjunction with the new rule, make egress about impossible. In other cases even without a HNRS the extension still makes egress impossible.
-
I don't know if it was on this thread or another. But complaining about visibility limits while being pushed in the pits and on turn-outs should be a non-issue. A tow-bar solves these problems. And a lot of others, too. Why anyone has to ride 4 or 5 miles being pushed with limited visibility and stopping power is beyond me. Steering a race car at BVille on non-graded salt with low speeds is not a treat. Let your friends take a picture of you at the wheel, then hitch up and go where you need to -- hopefully to visit DW.
We use motor home "whiskers" on the tow vehicle to keep the salt down. Works great. With open front wheels on the race car, they kick salt into the cockpit on turns, but would with pushing, too.
Maybe not on the right topic, but I still think worth posting.
-
Dan:
Thanks for all you do! :cheers:
-
Dan, will the reps present at the meeting be involved? Or will
this be another surprise event on the agenda for the next board/reps meeting?
-
All of the rule changes have been presented for a reason. Not because the SCTA/BNI is trying to slim down the lines on the salt, or something like that. They are presented for "saftey reasons", for everyone.
-
All of the rule changes have been presented for a reason. Not because the SCTA/BNI is trying to slim down the lines on the salt, or something like that. They are presented for "saftey reasons", for everyone.
We know that but if your a rep [ you sound like you might be] don't assume all rule changes have been researched and
worded correctly before voting. I think thats what happened with the helmet support ruleing, best intentions but not realizing
it not working on some cars, and committee members thinking more research was done, or not having enough time to think it through themselves.
JL222
-
JL222, are you referring to the lateral or HNR system?
-
I'm sure he is talking about the lateral rule and moving it more forward.
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do be live this came into effect because of how far your head could move forward. If you current support system is similar to mine, I used 1 1/4" diameter tubing, my head could clearly go under one of the two sides and perhaps break my neck.
-
I've just returned from the Indy trade show and there was a very nice display of Polycarbonate windows and windshields. The company is Shields Windscreens and their website is racingshields.com They have worked on some landspeed projects in the past. Seemed to be very nice quality.
-
JL222, are you referring to the lateral or HNR system?
The lateral
-
Thanks for the input from the PRI show Wayne.
Pete,
There will no vote on this issue. There are no meetings scheduled until January. We have to see what magic can be done to soften the impact of the "bat wing" rule.
DW
-
DW, let me know if you need any more pics to help our cause.
I have local access to several seat builders and there lateral head supports.
I can get info and pics of them on and off the car.
I can even take better pics of my seat and lateral head supports (I will get help) if you need more detailed view like with a driver wearing the helmet and belted in etc...
I am more than glad to help.
Charles
-
Thank you Charles,
DW
-
A quick comment on something other than the helmet restraint topic. I see that the equiv. displacement rule for rotary engines has finely been made to something reasonable. The multiplier is now 2 times sweep volume, it was 3 times. This is making me reconsider the power plant for my future lakester.
Rex
-
Hmm! :evil: Tony
-
It's liable to get noisey out there.
-
I love that noise!
-
It's liable to get noisey out there.
Its not noise, its music. Kind of like Beethovan's symphony #5. 8-) Tony
-
I may have posted this before, but in the seventies I was lucid enough to remember a guy from Portland named Terry Hoard, who drag raced a car called the Samuri Warrior.
What a horrendous noise, sort of like a nuclear washing machine run amouk with no bearings left.
When he reved (or expanded or whatever the f--k those things do), dog's died, women became sterile, men more insane, and I left for Bonneville.
I am afraid if that motor was brought to Bonneville that a giant chasm might open up and swallow all the fuel burning roadsters for life!!!
Only ear doctors and hearing aid specialists will benifit from allowing these monsters to drown out the memories of Chauvin or Leggit warming up.
May God save us...................................... :roll: Bob
-
I agree with Bob D,,, there is no joy in hearing a rotary rev up... nothing compares to the lope of a V8...
Those Rotary engines may be fast and rev to the moon, but they sure do hurt the ears... :evil: :evil:
But run'em if'n you got'em.
Charles
-
Way back when I had a Mazda RX4 -- the four door sedan. I remember showing how smooth was the engine - to a buddy. I'd have it in "park", open the hood, and have him hold onto the hood at the far front end -- farthest away from the mounting hinges. I'd rev it to 7 grand -- and he would be amazed that there wasn't any vibration anywhere along the 0 - 7,000 curve. The car, for a four door family grocery getter, was quite spritely, too. Ah, those were the days, hey?
-
Maybe I could move exhaust to the driverside for everyone in the pits to hear, nope they will still hear me coming down the track!
-
I'd always heard that the incentive to drive a rotary fast was to outrun the damned noise.
-
Owned a couple of Mazdas in the mid-seventies. RX-3 coupe and an RX-4 wagon.
Driving one was kind of like a Buick GNX. Not much noise or drama for a few seconds, then all of a sudden you were going really fast.
Horsepower graph was dramatic and peaked at a high RPM.
They came with an over-rev buzzer that was set at 6 or 7 grand, something like that.
Talking racers, I learned that the object was not to avoid the buzzer, but to keep it ON! That kept the engine in the narrow power band.
If it goes off ... add more throttle or downshift!
I'm not a big fan of the typical belly-button Pacific rim cars but the rotary does have a certain appeal.
Now back to the original, seriously high-jacked thread.
DonS
-
Ask the starters what they think of the noisy little ear drum breaking POS.
-
I think Marlo had one in the lakester back in the Monastery bus days, with a blower that was larger than the motor :-o
-
Maybe I could move exhaust to the driverside for everyone in the pits to hear, nope they will still hear me coming down the track!
Maybe they could move the exhaust into the drivers compartment. That would get rid of roatarys even quicker!!!!
-
Maybe I could move exhaust to the driverside for everyone in the pits to hear, nope they will still hear me coming down the track!
Maybe they could move the exhaust into the drivers compartment. That would get rid of roatarys even quicker!!!!
Still won't bother me any, music to my ears!!
-
Way back when I had a Mazda RX4 -- the four door sedan. I remember showing how smooth was the engine - to a buddy. I'd have it in "park", open the hood, and have him hold onto the hood at the far front end -- farthest away from the mounting hinges. I'd rev it to 7 grand -- and he would be amazed that there wasn't any vibration anywhere along the 0 - 7,000 curve. The car, for a four door family grocery getter, was quite spritely, too. Ah, those were the days, hey?
Jon, Suzuki built a "Wankle" motorcycle back in the mid-70s, the RE5. You could annoy a bunch of folks racing one of those.
-
Suzuki built a "Wankle" motorcycle back in the mid-70s, the RE5. You could annoy a bunch of folks racing one of those.
And of course there was the Norton Rotary
G
-
Is there a difference besides the name of using say 1/4 inch Lexan, and 1/4 off the wall plexiglass? Is just normal plexiglass ok for windows in the car?
TIA
Clay
-
Is there a difference besides the name of using say 1/4 inch Lexan, and 1/4 off the wall plexiglass? Is just normal plexiglass ok for windows in the car?
TIA
Clay
I might have the answer, I'm pretty sure "plexiglass" will shatter into pieces, witch are larger than the pieces you get from a tempered window. Lexan is suposably shatter-proof. Peter.
-
Is there a difference besides the name of using say 1/4 inch Lexan, and 1/4 off the wall plexiglass? Is just normal plexiglass ok for windows in the car?
TIA
Clay
Big difference. Plexiglas=cast acrylic. Lexan=Polycarbonate. As has been pointed out Plexi is like plate glass. That's why it's hard to drill with out shattering. Lexan is what is used for Aircraft windows and wind screens. In WW2 some called it "Bullet proof glass" Not really. But there is a very good reason Plexiglas is not allowed. Lexan is a General Electric product. There are other sources for polycarbonate sheet.
-
I've bought poly at OSH for my motorcycle shield. Make sure you drill any hole you need before cutting. The more material you have around the hole the better when drilling.........GoodLuck
-
I like your avatar JD. Any gold at the bottom of that? :-D
-
Need clarification please:
Ok in the GC class, it says "A replacement radiator of the same height and width and mounted in the original location as OEM shall be used". So am I understanding this rule correctly that I cannot run my water tanks rather I have to run the cooling through the radiator?
Or does it mean that I have to have to stock radiator in the stock location, same size, etc?
Not trying to open a can of worms,
Just need help (In more ways than one) (Grin)
TIA
Clay
-
Clay, I was having a chat today, via email about the same thing, in the vintage class.
It seems to me as long as the radiator is there, we can run through the tanks.
Anyone have a definitave answer?
-
I looked and looked, could not find any words that told me I had to use the OEM radiator to flow the water. Don't forget that the wording has been admended to allow the use of a larger than OEM radiator.
Use water tanks if you want, don't block the radiator core with the tank.
DW
-
Dyno. Been my pot of gold since 1967..Let alone trailer storage, machine shop, weld shop, fab shop, balste, aww you get the picture...
-
. . . . . Don't forget that the wording has been admended to allow the use of a larger than OEM radiator.
DW
Please define the word "larger" as used in the radiator amendment . . .
More specifically . . the core of the OEM radiator that came with my gas coupe measures approximately 14 inches wide by 14 inches high. The area is 196 square inches. Are either of the following two radiators "larger" than the 196 square inch OEM radiator?
a) One narrower than OEM but taller . . . 10 wide x 20 inches high (200 square inches)
b) One taller than OEM but wider. . . 15.5 inches wide x 13 inches tall (201,5 square inches)
Both have a "larger" area, but neither have both a larger height and a larger width.
-
Since CdA is usually what is important in LSR I would suspect area is the deciding factor. The GC rules require stock sheet metal and no blanking off holes. Are you saying you can fit either geometry within stock configuration?
-
I do believe the interpretation of the rule is meant for the radiator to fill the opening exactly as stock or larger, but no less than stock length or width. Is this correct Mr. Warner?
-
Score one point for Pete.
"no less than stock length or width", not real hard to understand.
Real life experience here. When we raced the Alfa, pre-Cook, we used Bob Noice's PSI blown Rodeck at one El Mirage meet. The size of the blower put all that mass higher than the roll cage., outside the body. This is kinda like using an OEM sized radiator in Gas Coupe. BTW, won the season championship at that event.
Our mantra at that event was, frontal area does not scare us - we'll horsepower thru it.
DW
-
Since CdA is usually what is important in LSR I would suspect area is the deciding factor. The GC rules require stock sheet metal and no blanking off holes. Are you saying you can fit either geometry within stock configuration?
What I am saying is that I cannot fit a radiator in my car that is as wide as the stock OEM Radiator mounted in the OEM location. Part of that space is now occupied by part of the engine. So even with the clarification, amendment, etc the rule still pushes my setup out of GC and into Altered (after I cover up the headlights).
All in all the new wording of the CG radiator rule seems like a good rule clarification and I can live with that.
-
Maybe this was already mentioned. I read it but it was a long thread.....
The radiator rule is what I am talking about. Even with a smaller radiator, unless you block the unused area, all that air is still going into the engine bay and not providing any sort of aero benefit. If they are just trying to prevent any aero advantage then why not have a general rule outlawing any method of obviously blocking airflow?
-
I've just returned from the Indy trade show and there was a very nice display of Polycarbonate windows and windshields. The company is Shields Windscreens and their website is racingshields.com They have worked on some landspeed projects in the past. Seemed to be very nice quality.
Shields makes great stuff. I have used their products in the past in several road race cars. They can also make any windshield for a reasonable price if they don't already have a mold. You can send them your windshield or pay like $75 for them to source one locally then add that to the price based on thickness, supershield, tint, antifog etc.... the prices are all on their site.
-
I have just sent the following to all effected web sites, look for this to be posted on scat-bni.org and landracing.com.
Rewrites for pending rules issues:
3.A.3 Driver’s Helmet SupportLateral Movement: The seat, roll cage structure or suitable restraint system, such as a restraint net, swing away bar or similar such device, shall provide restriction to lateral head movement of less than 2 in. per side inclusive of structure deflection, and at a minimum extend to the forward most portion of the helmet see Section 3.B.1.
3.U WINDOWS AND WINDSHIELDS:
All non-stock windows and windshields shall be made of shatter-resistant plastic, such as polycarbonate (Lexan), and shall provide 120 degrees of adequate vision forward. On all open body cars a windshield is recommended, but shall not restrict driver entrance or exit. In all classes where a headrest fairing is permitted, the windshield may sweep around the driver’s head and connect to the fairing on either side (see 3.E Driver’s Compartment rule concerning sharp edges).
All windshield wiper blades and arms shall be removed. On front and rear windows, retaining tabs or straps are required over 175 MPH.
Vehicles with T-Tops or moon roof panels shall have the panels retained with tabs or straps.
All vehicles over 250 MPH shall replace all non-laminated safety glass windows with polycarbonate material. All other glass, such as headlights, must be covered with SAFETY film.
Beginning January 1, 2012 all vehicles in classes where the record exceeds 200 MPH must have all non-laminated safety glass windows replaced with polycarbonate material.
Beginning January 1, 2012 all vehicles with “frameless” side windows, regardless of speed, must have all non-laminated windows constructed of polycarbonate material.Additional bracing must be installed to prevent window blowout or collapse.
DW
-
Dan, thanks a million for running those two rules back through the committee. It just proves again that LSR is not a "us versus them" deal, and that our voices can be heard.
Thank God and Slim (in no particular order) for allowing us to use this site for more than just shmoozing......... Bob
:cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:
-
Mayor---thanks for your efforts :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:
-
3.A.3 Driver’s Helmet SupportLateral Movement: The seat, roll cage structure or suitable restraint system, such as a restraint net, swing away bar or similar such device, shall provide restriction to lateral head movement of less than 2 in. per side inclusive of structure deflection, and at a minimum extend to the forward most portion of the helmet see Section 3.B.1.
Hey DW, Thanks for ALL that you do, but can you please ellaborate on this a little bit? Does this mean that we do not have to have a HNR of 38.1 SFI type for 2011?
Thanks again! :cheers:
-
Ryan, the above is in addition to the HNR system 38.1.
The change is in the way you retain the helmet in a laterial (side to side) movement. The SCTA has given options here compaired to how the rule was first conveyed.
-
Got it. Thanks. :cheers:
-
YAY! I'll still be able to barely get into and out of my car! :-D
Dan, thank you for shepherding our concerns on these issues.
Chris Conrad
-
Thanks, Dan, and have a Happy New Year. See 'Ya in August. :cheers: :cheers:
Doug
-
Dan, do we still need to have safety film on both sides of windows that are not liminated glass?? or is that only for glass headlight lenses on cars going over 250mph?? Or has that requirement for safety film been deleted for this years racing (2011)??? sure hope so. I wasn't sure with the most recent write up for 3.U in rule book, thanks Dave
-
If your car was legal for 2010 it is legal for 2011.
The rule still states that safety film is needed for glass lenses such as headlights.
DW
-
DW
I understand what the rules say, "BUT" (you know how that goes) wouldn't it be safer to have formed sheet metal with decals instead of glass in the headlight sockets? I put chip guard on my roadster lights but if they broke it could still let the rest of the sealed beam headlight glass fall out of the bucket on the track.
I was going to use wheeled aluminum and decals until you pointed out "headlights must be used".
I,m not talking about streamlining, just replacing the glass sealed beams with metal and decals.
Thanks
Ron Gibson
-
Years ago I replaced my glass lenses for my headlights with plastic lenses, and yes my head lights still have to work. This should work better than safety film on the original glass lenses. Dave
-
Ron,
If you replace or cover the headlights with metal it has to meet the minimum requirements for class. Decal not necessary.
Dave,
Lights do not have to work in any class.
DW
-
Lights do not have to work in any class.
That had been a niggling concern in the back of my head since day one - thanks for that, Dan. I trust horns need not be functional, either?
-
I trust horns need not be functional, either?
That is correct. Pg 46, Paragraph 4.DD spells out street equipment that needs to be in place. However, it fails to mention it all can be non-fuctional. A rule clarification that is long overdue.
-
Don't you want to have any fun in impound? Left in that format because you and I need to open the rule book over something. You young guys need too much direction.
DW
-
Its more fun to open sumptin with a pop-top. :cheers:
-
Don't you want to have any fun in impound? Left in that format because you and I need to open the rule book over something. You young guys need too much direction.
DW
Speaking of direction - what about the turn signals? :-D
Dan, I'd love to have a discussion in impound. That means I would have made it to impound! :cheers:
-
Lights do not have to work in any class.
That had been a niggling concern in the back of my head since day one - thanks for that, Dan. I trust horns need not be functional, either?
Ah
But Chris, the horn's good for telling people to get out they way before you run them over on the way to impound :-D
Neil
-
Thanks Dan, For getting the rulebook wording clarified, and answering all the questions here on the board! :cheers:
-
Yes, Dan thanks for the help!! :cheers:
-
That just means you guys havn't been around long enough to remember that Production & Gas Coupe did require a working horn in the not so distant past....... why else have it in the book....... my, how times change.
Had to honk Geislers in '80 when Stringfellow got in.
-
That just means you guys havn't been around long enough to remember that Production & Gas Coupe did require a working horn in the not so distant past....... why else have it in the book....... my, how times change.
Had to honk Geislers in '80 when Stringfellow got in.
And don't forget the horn had to be able to start the engine :-o :-D
JL222
-
Maybe I read all this wrong, but I can't find anywhere where all this "stuff" needs to work. When I converted my 40 Chevy from Altered to Gas Coupe in 1978 the rule book stated the same as does now. I needed to find a 1940 horn and attach it behind the grillle and search out a pair of fender mounted parking lights to make sure I met the rules for the class but I didn't make anything work. I had to add a front bumper and running boards too. Faked the bumper mounting brackets cause I couldn't find any but as for working I've looked at the latest rule book on pages 68, 69, 73-77 and only that you need them and they be the same year as the car.................................but I could be wrong...........JD
-
You are correct JD. Nobody is saying that stuff has to be operational. See my post #333 above. That paragraph has never changed but the issue comes up quite often. It was raised on this forum a couple of years ago. The confusing thing is that it says “. . . required for legal street operation”. Almost all states require stuff to be operational in order to be legal street equipment. Who hasn’t gotten a fix-it ticket. :-D We know the text is just an all-inclusive way of making sure parts are there for aero purposes. Working or not is irrelevant. (Unless you have “wig-wag” turn signals). The decal change was added about 2 years ago and it would have been easy to clarify functionality then. But that would have resulted in a clearly understood rule. :evil:
-
If you need the rule to state "non-functional" or whatever is needed to clarify, submit a change form.
DW
-
Hi Dan!
Where the rulebook says now:
"3.A.3 Driver’s Helmet SupportLateral Movement: The seat, roll cage structure or suitable restraint system, such as a restraint net, swing away bar or similar such device, shall provide restriction to lateral head movement of less than 2 in. per side inclusive of structure deflection, and at a minimum extend to the forward most portion of the helmet see Section 3.B.1."
I would like to see a little clarification on the part that says "head movement of less that 2 in. per side".
To me, that means that in the seated position, if you lean your head to one side, you should have 4" on the other side of your head.
When we built my car... I knew this was wrong... so I asked. I was told by a tech inspector that you should have about 2" to one side if your head is up against one side.
So, I think in this case... it would be good to have an example in there. i.e. "Example: If your helmet is against the padding on the right you should have x-amount of distance from the helmet to the padding on the left side."
Just a suggestion!
Sam
-
Sam, I totally agree. The rewrite helps clarify but that darn "inclusive" still makes me scratch my head.
As I said in a earlier post, we are not all rocket scientists. Make it simple for us simple minds..............Puleeze!
Bob
-
I'm reading it as two inches on the left side, two inches on the right.
The starting point would be your standard driving position.
You have two sides - two inches per side, thus "lateral head movement of less than 2 inches per side."
I suppose I could shim it up if I'm wrong, but I'd think you'd need that much room to prevent your head from pin-balling between the restraints.
-
At the tech inspectors meeting in 2009 when this wording was put in thee book (IIRC) it was explained to me like this.
"Take the drivers helmet, put it against the cage & take your fist to see how much room you've got"
The meaning is we "try" to keep things simple. The average fist is ~4" across. Thus 2" per side. Nothing exact, we won't use calipers. Just don't have too much clearance, simple.
-
First of all I want to go on record, [so there is a record] as apposing this new lateral movement rule as written.
How will this forward most part of helmet be measured [by placing the helmet in back of seat at headrest or
with driver in and then measured which places helmet further foward? Anybody friggen know?
Right now the new placment leaves 151/2 inches to our front roll bar down tube, I measure 131/2'' front to back
without firesuit on and firesuit measures 11/2 in. thick ...total 15 inchs this is turning completly sideways to get out, WITHOUT a hans device on AND Camaro's have wide doors. Guess what, there are guys way bigger than me and cars with way smaller doors.
The sh...t is starting to hit the fan as racers start to learn about this new rule, a friend of mine called me wanting to know what the hell was going on as fast freddy and foggie had just looked at his Camaro and informed
him his car wasn't going to pass inspection. His reply you guys are making racers park their cars.
Last year I purchased the lateral side support roll bar padding thats required by NHRA for the fuel cars, this padding is 15 inchs long 6 in wide 3'' thick and tapers for half its length to 3/4 in thick, anybody on the rule committee friggen know why it tapers.
Anyhow I want this as a record so in the future [when someone gets trapped in their car and dies] and someone ask what were they thinking, how come nobody apposed this?
JL222
-
JL, no doubt ,and most recently thanks to John (he's all NHRA has) Force's embarrassing incident with the car breaking in two and dodge near being punted by Bernstein there has been what yrs truly would call KNEE JERK reaction to some of the safety standards and time may prove you right.
In that vein, I think some of the safety equipment purveyors have lobbied for their product to be exclusively being written into certain specs. Smells of corruption to Me.
I stand firm on the HANS device, though. The fact that a then healthy GM and Daimler Benz underwrote its development to save the necks of their contracted drivers - talk to ANYBODY that raced for Pontiac at the HANS introduction for instance - no HANS - no corporate money! And its MANDATORY use in F1 for its $prima - donnas$.
-
IB,
"In that vein, I think some of the safety equipment purveyors have lobbied for their product to be exclusively being written into certain specs. Smells of corruption to Me."
Can you point to page and section? I read the book almost every day and don't recall where this is.
JL222 - have you asked Lee Kennedy where the measurments will be taken? I don't think that any one, except maybe Nathan Stewart, knows the answer to your question.
-
Dan, it would help to know were the measurements will be taken from before construction.
Let it be noted that even the $500 NHRA spec lateral movement head restraint is illegal under SCTA rules.
IB..I've posted before how the hans restraint manufactures are salivating at the mouth over the SCTA ruling
and now the Lexan manufactures. [ recent deletion of prices on web sites ] Glad we have a Camaro as the Lexan
is available. Oh I forgot SCTA thinks theres no problem just make those compound bends, no problem.
Like I told Foggie at a party recenly no problem go ahead print them no problem. [ for me, except the $2000]
And as he and fast Freddy found out recently the sh..ts starting to hit the fan.
JL222
-
Mr. DW
"...CERTAIN SPECS. . ." did you ever think that statement might refer to OTHER race sanctioning bodies and was worded that CERTAIN way and the wrirter had no intention of including SCTA/BNI in the statement.
Personally, I believe the collective wisdom of SCTA/BNI, being ALL racers and non - commercial is a lot smarter than you seem to take me.
Although there are some dumb rules. (Two different Modified Roadster categories for staters).
You quit Landracing before for, I assume, taking things WAY too personally.
Chill and enjoy!
With respect,
IB
-
JL222 - let me see if I have this straight.
You believe the deletion of price sheets on the web is due to a decision by the SCTA?
As for the "recent deletion of prices on websites", I doubt that the LSR community has the buying clout to change the practices of an entire industry to that degree. It doesn't make economic sense.
I think if price lists are being pulled, it's likely to have a lot more to do with $90.00/barrel oil than the roll out of polycarbonate windows into, what, maybe 200 - 500 specialty cars for a hobby sport.
As for the salivating head and neck restraint lobby, they'll sell quite a few more products to the go cart community then to LSR racers.
Call me naive, but I'm just not seeing this as the big conspiracy.
-
Milwaukie, I agree that the word " conspiracy" as used by others may be a little strong, but I would place a bet that the majority of LSRacers are, like me, low buck.
I am lucky to not be affected by the window rule (at this time), but I have to budget $2500. per trip, not including the race car itself.
The NHRA has seen a sudden drop in Alcohal Funny Cars since they mandated carbon fiber brakes, which are mega-bucks.
I back the SCTA decision about replacing the Frameless glass in newer cars, but I totally emphasize with the racers involved.
I know the SCTA does not want to be put in a awkward position, but I wonder if it would be possible for them to facilitate a bulk purchase or possibly find a vendor who would give the racers a "group" discount.
Paying retail for Lexan is a tough pill to swallow for those of us with open trailers................. Bob
-
JL222 - let me see if I have this straight.
You believe the deletion of price sheets on the web is due to a decision by the SCTA?
As for the "recent deletion of prices on websites", I doubt that the LSR community has the buying clout to change the practices of an entire industry to that degree. It doesn't make economic sense.
I think if price lists are being pulled, it's likely to have a lot more to do with $90.00/barrel oil than the roll out of polycarbonate windows into, what, maybe 200 - 500 specialty cars for a hobby sport.
As for the salivating head and neck restraint lobby, they'll sell quite a few more products to the go cart community then to LSR racers.
Call me naive, but I'm just not seeing this as the big conspiracy.
Yea ....your probably right about the Lexan but this one company did delete their prices last year before oil was at it's current
price and after we had talked to them, but the hans devices, if you multiply all SCTA/BNI cars by [ what over 500 entries and not everybody is there at once] say 700 x $600 is $420,000 enough to make small companys SMILE :-D
JL222 :cheers:
-
There were probably discussions like this when 5-point harnesses were first mandated.
420 K is hardly a lot of money in the grand scheme, especially when you consider that Safety Solutions is cutting into Hans' sales, these things aren't cheap to produce, and there are liability costs.
And while I'm certain the makers of the Hans and Hybrid solutions pieces are grateful for our business, a market the size of two McMansions in a new subdivision isn't going to cover the CEO's bonus. We are small potatoes.
I'm not unsympathetic to the small racer. I am one. Bob, you mentioned trailers - I had to rent a U-haul last year.
I guess my point is that we're at the table, and the ante's been raised, for arguably rational reasons. I don't feel gouged or used by any of this - it's the cost of playing the game.
-
IB,
OK, understood.
I may be sensitive to comments about rules and rule book. I want the racers to have a positive influence on the rules and encourage their input. Witness the changes made to the 2011 rule book for lateral movement and window replacement from this message board.
I will defend the people who spend their time and resources to put a rule book together so that we can time our cars. Notice I did not say race in respect to Jack Costella who claims we are not racing. I do not condone negative comments about the rules with no solution offered or to the people who are trying their best.
As to the confused Mod Roadster rules, please take the time to contact those who may have some control over the changes you think need to be made. There is a process to submit rule changes, please take advantage of it.
To all who submit a change request, if your request does not become law do not think that your input is not valued. Each and every submitted change is reviewed and discussed. I have spoken to Mike Manghelli and from 2011 forward we will contact those that have submitted a change with the results from the committee meetings. We have been lax in that area in the past.
DW
-
if you multiply all SCTA/BNI cars by [ what over 500 entries and not everybody is there at once] say 700 x $600 is $420,000 enough to make small companys SMILE :-D
JL222 :cheers:
If you are talking about entries at speedweek don't forget there are a few motorcycles in the entry list. Speedweek entries 2010 were 381 cars, 180 bikes, and not all cars have windshields, but hey I am a Roadster toad. LOL.
Tom G.
-
MM... I would think that the casinos in bendover are a bit bigger corporations than the hans manufactures
and bville racers [ or Jack Costello's more correct, time trialers] seem to be able to influence their price gouging
at speedweek.
JL222
-
if you multiply all SCTA/BNI cars by [ what over 500 entries and not everybody is there at once] say 700 x $600 is $420,000 enough to make small companys SMILE :-D
JL222 :cheers:
[/quot
If you are talking about entries at speedweek don't forget there are a few motorcycles in the entry list. Speedweek entries 2010 were 381 cars, 180 bikes, and not all cars have windshields, but hey I am a Roadster toad. LOL.
Tom G.
Yea... your right, but I wonder how many actual cars there are counting Bville-El Mirage..USFRA and others that have to
buy the devices.
JL222 :cheers:
P.S. Tom...roadster guys don't run wide tires for the same reason cowboys all were long sleeve shirts :-D
-
MM... I would think that the casinos in bendover are a bit bigger corporations than the hans manufactures
and bville racers [ or Jack Costello's more correct, time trialers] seem to be able to influence their price gouging
at speedweek.
JL222
Red herring. Racers don't rent head restraints, and the SCTA hasn't mandated hotel rooms.
But enough economics - What it boils down to is you gotta pay to play.
-
MM... I would think that the casinos in bendover are a bit bigger corporations than the hans manufactures
and bville racers [ or Jack Costello's more correct, time trialers] seem to be able to influence their price gouging
at speedweek.
JL222
Red herring. Racers don't rent head restraints, and the SCTA hasn't mandated hotel rooms.
But enough economics - What it boils down to is you gotta pay to play.
Yea..and the entry fees haven't gone up and the officials and workers are staying at the bend.
JL222
-
This pasted from another thread,
"Fastman , in response to the HNR question, I have talked this over with lee kenedy at length and the Isaac system is OK as long as you get the one with shocks and not the Basic, (the one with straps). Also DJ Safety is testing their new model at the end of january, It seems to me it might solve a lot of small,tight car problems, and should be available in feb".
Has anyone else heard of the Issac being allowed for 2011?
Just curious, the SCCA production racers are all up in a bunch because they think the Issac is superior.
John
-
DW,
First I want to thank you for your participation on these boards, your responses have helped many of us who are building better understand the intent, the allowance, and the letter of the rules.
On the side helmet restraint, I understand the intent of the new rule and am trying to pick a seat for my CC (2011 is looking unlikely, I'll try for Elmo in early 2012. I live 90 miles from BRD, so private testing is easy.)
I spent a fair amount of the last few weeks researching multiple seat manufacturer's products and watching Speed channel for multiple racing series' use of lateral head restraints. This safety feature seems to be common in many racing series (gotta love those in-car cameras). The common forward limit of these restraints is closer to the side of the driver's jaw and no side helmet restraint currently manufactured or in use in other racing series (other than a separate insert as in IRL) goes forward to the front of the helmet. Most of the restraints in use (and available for purchase) only go as far forward as typical torso bolsters; i.e. as far forward as the back edges of the helmet face shield. This seems to allow reasonable entry and exit on fixed-door cars and restrains the helmet from lateral movement in a violent rollover. Their appears to be no tendency of this level of restraint to allow the helmet/head to go forward of the restraint and lose lateral support.
Is the intent and enforcement of the 2011 helmet side restraint rule to be compatible with these other racing series and readily available seat hardware, or are we going to have to extend the available restraints to the "forward most portion of the helmet"?
This would be a 5 to 6" difference and could be the difference between safe egress and no egress at all. If the latter, this standard exceeds all other amateur racing series in the US and will require custom hardware for each car as this level of side restraint is not readily available on the open market. I will then mount my seat farther aft and my steering wheel on an extension with the disconnect at the base so that I have sufficient room between the forward limit of the helmet restraint and the A pillar to exit in a hurry. It is this conflict between the A pillar, the steering column, the helmet restraint, and our aged girths that we are concerned about.
Again I thank you for your patience with my pedantic questions.
-
Blue, well worded and I agree with your observations.
My ISP containment seats side head restraints do meet the 2011 rules (just by a fraction of an inch with helmet fully back against the head rest). I too have my seat well back of the dash and "A" Pillar and a longer steering column,, (I did this for my size, but it did work out and meet the new Side Restraint Rules too).
I have researched several seat designs and it does appear that almost none of the drivers side head lateral supports come out as far as the new SCTA 2011 rule wants.
I would hope in the tech line that some common sense is used when looking at each car/seat application and that they do not pull out a micrometer to enforce the new rule....
Charles
-
Blue and Charles,
The points made in the last two posts are better directed to Lee Kennedy and Steve Davies.
We were able to get the rule changed to accept nets, swing out bars, etc. I have seen two uses of the triangular net, sprint car type, as used on the NASCAR cars right side where the forward part of the net is attached to the window net and falls away when the window net is released.
It seems that some are coming up with solutions. Keep at it maybe you can get the entire rule rewritten for next year, 2012.
DW
-
It seems that some are coming up with solutions. Keep at it maybe you can get the entire rule rewritten for next year, 2012.
DW
Dan,Your sarcasm is showing! Anyway....got me laughing. :-D
-
Maybe a bit sarcastic. The truth is that if the general public, you guys, can improve on a rule it can be modified. Witness the two new rules for 2011 that were reworked before final release.
DW
-
Thank's to you Dan.................... :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:
-
. . . I believe we can find replacement windows for the camaro but there are a lot of cars that might not.
Google 'Lexan windshield'
One of many hits will be = http://www.vfnfiberglass.com/Lexan%20Windows.htm or see post by RichFox above. This isn't rocket science . . .
As of 2012: No vehicles newer than 10 years old are on that list. There are almost no vehicles on that particular list.
We missed the first race because I did not want to buy $50 auto tint that is reboxed and sold as Safety Film for $200.
I'm not that gullible.
So I will make my own windows in my "free time" which doesn't actually exist.
(useless drivel removed)
OK, that's my rant for the day. I'm trying to find out how thick to make the stupid plastic windows, but they forgot to put that in the rule change, just like they forgot to put the definition of safety film in there.
:evil:
OK, It's Monday, and I'm grumpy.
-
Awefull worked up over year old news?
-
Awefull worked up over year old news?
Just blowing off steam. I didn't run 2010/2011 (money), and didn't read the books carefully enough.
If the record is over 200, you need plastic, even in a Bugatti Veyron or McLaren.
I did the Horse Collar, but the plastic windows caught me by surprise.
-
Well that was funny :-D . . . but kind of nice to rekindle an old thread that was dormant for about 1-1/2 years! I'll have to check but I think my Veyron has laminated safety glass all around. Therefore no Lexan required. :evil:
-
It's easy to tell, just smack the driver's window with a ball peen, and if the fragments stay together, it's laminated!
:evil:
-
but the plastic windows caught me by surprise.
you mean you haven't opened a rule book in 2 years? not even to see if your records are still there?
-
but the plastic windows caught me by surprise.
you mean you haven't opened a rule book in 2 years? not even to see if your records are still there?
Touche! :-D
-
but the plastic windows caught me by surprise.
you mean you haven't opened a rule book in 2 years? not even to see if your records are still there?
I guess that would be correct. I "retired" from pretty much all forms of racing in 2010, 2011. I still did my club assignments at Elmo and paid dues, but nothing else LSR. Did some minor drag and RR stuff, but very, very little.
I found I lost a Bonneville record by reading the press releases from the Marketing Dept at Ford Motorsports. Testing in the Lockheed Martin windtunnel???? Are you chitting me??? :-D
A minor clarification on their releases: GM, Chevy, GMC, and Allison have nothing to do with us. In fact, Allison is particular has been a hinderance, not a help. Not even allowing us to purchase assistance they would give to a non-racing company.
PPE, Garrett, Inglewood Transmissions, EFILive, SoCal Diesel, and other shops helped us, but GM would not even acknowledge we exist, nor do they acknowledge that anyone is racing the Duramax Diesel engine. It's not the image they want.
-
nor do they acknowledge that anyone is racing the Duramax Diesel engine. It's not the image they want.
I find that kinda funny considering I can't remember the last car commercial that didn't show the car drifting. Sliding the car at excess speed through the corner is how everybody drives.
-
nor do they acknowledge that anyone is racing the Duramax Diesel engine. It's not the image they want.
... Sliding the car at excess speed through the corner is how everybody drives.
DOH!! I didn't think anyone was looking! :evil:
Not sure if even the Mormon Missile Dmax Streamliner got a Kudos by Chevy for becoming the fastest diesel. If so, it was pretty subdued.
-
I can't remember if my Bugatti has frameless side windows or not. I'll have to send Jeeves out to the coach house to check.
-
How could anyone in their right mind name a town Festus? This leads to the question: When it's hot and muggy in Festus do the locals refer to it as "swelltering or festering in Festus"?
Sorry, my Ritalin is just kicking in.............. Bob
-
but the plastic windows caught me by surprise.
you mean you haven't opened a rule book in 2 years? not even to see if your records are still there?
Technically, when we set the B/DT record, we weren't "book legal" for DT.
DT is a Gas Coupe class. It requires an engine swap, non OEM supercharging, or quick-change axles ratios. The B/DT record we set was with the factory engine (403ci), a single turbo in the factory location (same brand as OEM), the factory Allison transmission, with the factory AAM 11.50" rear axle with G80 locking option. No Gear Vendor unit was used.
The DT rules are really messed up. A real OEM turbo Diesel Pickup is illegal in that class. It should be running BMP instead, where it IS legal, since it is factory blown, it's forced into it and can ignore the Gas Coupe super/swap/gear rule.
We changed axles to a quick-change and ran 2 turbos to satisfy the DT rules in 2009 (A/DT, non-factory displacement)
-
Local legend holds that the town of Festus, MO took it's name from Porcius Festus, a Roman government offical from the B.C. times.
Before it was incorporated as Festus, this town was unofficially known as Tanglefoot due to the large number of saloons in town. Festus is located adjacent to Crystal City, MO. Together, they are known as the Twin Cities of Jefferson County, MO. At the time, Crystal City was a "dry" town, so people went across the road to the "wet" township of Tanglefoot, which eventually became Festus.
Legend has it that a name would be randomly selected from the Bible, and Porcius Festus was the name selected. The rest of the legend is a bit dubious. The story goes that the townspeople agreed to fire a rifle at a Bible, and whichever name fell closest to the bullet's center, on the last page of the Bible which the bullet penetrated, would be the name of the town.
I personally doubt this story, as I'm sure that it was uncommon practice in the 1800's to shoot holes in Bibles. Anyway, the name stuck.
As to the other question, it gets very hot and humid around here in the mid summer. There are a number of colloquialisms to describe these weather conditions, but none of them are related to the town's name.
Steve.
-
Sorry I asked......................... Bob :evil: :cheers: