Landracing Forum
Bonneville Salt Flats Discussion => SCTA Rule Questions => Topic started by: Seldom Seen Slim on November 22, 2011, 05:58:17 PM
-
Dan Warner has sent the rules changes (not all the rules, mind you, but just the changes for the coming year), and I'll get them posted on the home page of the site later this evening. There are multiple pages - so I'll break it into a couple of parts so you'll have to follow the link to most of 'em. But that's small potatoes -- we've got the coming year's rule changes BEFORE Thanksgiving. Wait and see, okay?
All right, it took only about 10 minutes to get 'em on the home page. 'Twas easier than I feared it'd be: www.landracing.com
Not that it's that difficult, at all, but I thought I might as well see if I could play for some sympathy. :evil:
-
Kudos to the rules committee and club reps for jumping on and finalizing the new rules.
I promise not to bitch for at least two days, but I don't know about Stan. After his Thanksgiving nap he might be a little cranky (too much stuffingj) if you know what I mean. :roll: :-D
-
Hey, they are posted (thanks Slim) and I think all of the four wheel vehicle guy's should be happy.
It is great to see that the committee went to lengths to make some existing rules easier to read for us book challenged racers.
thanx again to all who contributed, Bob
-
WINGS for competition coupes :-o :cheers:
George will be celebrating :-D
JL222
-
John, if it helps keep those guy's on the ground, I am all for it, and who would be better at assessing the pro's and con's than George. He has seen the salt looking both up and down................ Bob
-
John, if it helps keep those guy's on the ground, I am all for it, and who would be better at assessing the pro's and con's than George. He has seen the salt looking both up and down................ Bob
Interesting to see how it will work with the lowest part of the wing a minimum of 6" above the tallest part of the body. for a un-chopped coupe that's pretty high and in my opinion a big cantilever with unwanted results. Maybe it should read a minimum of 6" above the truck lid.
DW, and everyone who worked on the rules should be commended. Its a thankless job, and I am glad that there a members that volunteer their time to do it. :cheers: Tony
-
They must have made that minimum with George's coupe in mind as there is no trunk lid [or is there]?
Hopefully builders will use common sense.
Not to late to make an addition to rules.
Also to submit design of wing to contest board for approval as failure would not be on the good side.
Seems like can-am almost banned wings when early designs were failing, don't want that to happen here.
There must be design standards available that a racer could look up before constructing.
It would be great to post them here at Landracing.com
JL222
-
JL222, It doesn't have to be the trunk lid, you could use the bottom of the rear window. The height rule for modifies roadsters was because someone used the wing to extend the back of the car :-o (kind of like a long tail at LeMans), but the coupe class the wing is allowed in has spoilers that can extend the back like along tail. This makes the argument used in the modified roadsters a moot point on coupes.
I think a wing rule based on aero and engineering principles should be written. The F5000 cars with the tall wings from the late 60's found out the hard way why it didn't work so good. I think the early Can Am wings were failing because the wing struts were mounted to the suspension on some cars and the suspension was failing from high the down force loads. Tony
-
Thanks to everyone for the kind words. There are many people who give of their personal time to get you the updates and then a rulebook in a reasonable time frame. I'm just the front man.
Regards the Comp Coupe wing deal. The design as written is direct from George with assistance from Tom Burkland. If you have a problem with the rule contact them.
DW
-
Dan
if they have a problem with the rule they should have voiced their opinion at their club meeting so their rep could vote on it at the rules meeting... "AND" they should have showed up at the rules meeting at Mangelli's.... the scta gives everyone a couple of opportunities to show up and voice their opinion..... or forever hold your peace
Kent
-
Dan
if they have a problem with the rule they should have voiced their opinion at their club meeting so their rep could vote on it at the rules meeting... "AND" they should have showed up at the rules meeting at Mangelli's.... the scta gives everyone a couple of opportunities to show up and voice their opinion..... or forever hold your peace
Kent
I'll say what I want to and when I want to without any direction from you.
IF the SCTA wants to allow wings without construction guide lines they might someday regret it.
JL222
-
"Issue: Foreign cars are not included in the Classic category.
5.C CLASSIC CATEGORY
This category encompasses American and Foreign coupes and sedans produced between 1928 and 1981 with a production rate of at least 500 vehicles of the same model for sale to the general public. Foreign coupes and sedans are limited to ‘F’ (123.00 to 183.99 cid, 2.016 to 3.014 L) engines sizes. These foreign vehicles are NOT eligible for the Season Points Championship at El Mirage during the 2012 season.
The classes within this category are intended to provide a venue for coupes and sedans from the “Golden Era” of American automobile production. Vehicles will include post-vintage cars such as the 1949-50 Ford and Mercury through the popular Muscle Car years of Camaros, Mustangs, and Chargers. Entries shall be unaltered in height, width, and contour with all stock panels, i.e., hoods, fenders, …"
Forgive me for not reading this the way it was intended but does this "limit" mean no foreign cars may run in a class higher than F, or does it mean they may not run in a class lower than F (ie 123ci or less, or does it mean that foreign cars may only run in F class nothing larger or smaller than F?
Zach
-
"Yes"
-
What? No restrictor plates? :-D
-
As I read the rule book there are no engine classes below "F" in Classic Category. Therefore it seems very clear that foreign sedans are limited to "F" engine class only.
-
I'm looking at 3M and it reads
"Vehicles that exceed 300 MPH shall be equipped with two (2) independent parachute systems"
I would have thought it should read
where the class record exceeds 300 mph, vehicles shall be equipped with two (2) independent parachute systems"
G
-
Rich,
Bottom of page 64 in your 2011 rulebook.
The addition of Foreign cars in the Classic Category is a test only. Note the part where the foreign cars are not allowed to compete for El Mirage points. The F engine class limit includes every displacement from K(0 cid)up to F(183.9 cid). The new rule for 2011, bottom of page 15 in your 2011 rulebook,allows engines with a smaller cid to run against larger engines if the break is not available to your class.
From 2011 rule book with updated records:
ENGINE CLASS BREAK
Omega Engines using a thermodynamic cycle other than Otto
Cubic Inch Liter Equiv.
AA 501.00 cid and over 8.210 liters and over
A 440.00 to 500.99 cid 7.210 to 8.209 L
B 373.00 to 439.99 cid 6.112 to 7.209 L
C 306.00 to 372.99 cid 5.015 to 6.111 L
D 261.00 to 305.99 cid 4.277 to 5.014 L
E 184.00 to 260.99 cid 3.015 to 4.276 L
F 123.00 to 183.99 cid 2.016 to 3.014 L
G 93.00 to 122.99 cid 1.524 to 2.015 L
H 62.00 to 92.99 cid 1 .016 to 1.523 L
I 46.00 to 61.99 cid 0 .754 to 1.015 L
J 31.00 to 45.99 cid 0 .508 to 0.753 L
K up to 30.99 cid 0 .507 L and under
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.
SECTION 6
BONNEVILLE NATIONAL CAR RECORDS
Classes with no listed record are considered as open.
6.C Classic Category
Classic Blown Fuel Altered - /CBFALT
F The Hudson Boys S. Carlson 08/11 129.641
Classic Unblown Fuel Altered - /CFALT
F Cohn Jucewic Monza B. Jucewic 08/11 165.224
Classic Blown Gas Altered - /CBGALT
F The Hudson Boys S. Carlson 08/11 123.782
Classic Unblown Gas Altered - /CGALT
F Cohn Jucewic Monza B. Jucewic 08/11 182.357
Classic Blown Gas Coupe - /CBGC
F Clean Air Corvair T. Keosababian 08/74 173.090
Classic Unblown Gas Coupe - /CGC
F Cohn Jucewic Monza B. Jucewic 08/11 174.922
Classic Production - /CPRO
F OPEN
Classic Production Supercharged - /CPS
F Not Available
SECTION 10
EL MIRAGE CAR RECORDS
Classes without a listed record have an established minimum record speed.
Established minimum record speeds are in the current revision of the El Mirage Procedures that are available at the SCTA trailer or at www.scta-bni.org
10.C Classic Category
Classic Blown Fuel Altered Coupe - /CBFALT
F Minimum
Classic Unblown Fuel Altered Coupe - /CFALT
F Minimum
Classic Blown Gas Altered Coupe - /CBGALT
F Minimum
Classic Unblown Gas Altered Coupe - /CGALT
F Minimum
Classic Blown Gas Coupe - /CBGC
F Minimum
Classic Unblown Gas Coupe - /CGC
F Minimum
Classic Production Coupe & Sedan - /CPRO
F Minimum
Classic Production Supercharged - /CPS
F Not Available
DW
-
Okay, am I reading the rule right?
Rancheros and El Caminos are permitted, despite not having seating for 4?
So might this class be open to Ranchero type utes, such as a Morris Minor Pickup with a 1 litre, and run I class?
-
Please post exactly which rule you are referring to Chris. Certainly you don't mean the F engine class/foregin cars in Classic Category.
DW
-
5.C 3rd pp, last sentence. Clarification, please - this change only applies to F class engines, or does it extend the range of engine sizes in the class down, with F being the high end of the displacement in the category?
Dan, thanks again - you have the patience of a saint.
-
As I read the rule book there are no engine classes below "F" in Classic Category. Therefore it seems very clear that foreign sedans are limited to "F" engine class only.
Sorry, Dan, Rich answered my question.
-
Man, I need to open another bottle! Another hearty red, save the Pinot Noir for the turkey tomorrow.
I, in no way see where the F engine class and foreign cars related to El Caminos, etc.
DW
-
Man, I need to open another bottle!
Okay, I'll put that on the shopping list for when I see you in September.
Page 62, but it appears that the point is moot.
:cheers:
-
Man, I need to open another bottle! Another hearty red, save the Pinot Noir for the turkey tomorrow.
I, in no way see where the F engine class and foreign cars related to El Caminos, etc.
DW
Dan; He wants to run an "I" engine in "F" class in an Austrailian Ute. Which is sorta like a Rancharo. And I want to run it with raised ports.
-
Dan... 2 buck Chuck is pretty good $24 a case at Trader Joe's :-D
JL222 :cheers:
-
Rich,
"He wants to run an "I" engine in "F" class in an Austrailian Ute. Which is sorta like a Rancharo. And I want to run it with raised ports."
I still cannot make the connection between now allowing El Caminos, Rancheros. It has been told to many people that the Ute can run in coupe classes, raised port heads are legal as mentioned before. Adding ports is not.
Trader Joes - where else can you take a $5 bill, get two bottles of an OK wine and change?
DW
-
So everything from 183.99 on down runs in F class, opening it up to cars like the MGC-GT, the 2.8 Capri, a boatload of Porsches that don't qualify under GT because of jump seats, a smattering of BMW's, 280Z 2+2's.
Sounds like it mirrors the early IMSA GTU/ SCCA 2.5 list for eligibility.
-
Dan; If you are taking any of this seriously. Kick back with that vino and have a good Thanksgiving. RF
-
Chris - you are correct sir!
Rich,
Dean of LA said it best "Its not life and death, its RACING!"
DW
-
Trader Joes - where else can you take a $5 bill, get two bottles of an OK wine and change?
DW
Dan... 2 buck Chuck is pretty good $24 a case at Trader Joe's :-D
JL222
Sounds like a hangover to me. LOL I won't buy anything cheaper at Trader Joe's than their own brand wine which is $4 a bottle. Maybe that is why I am not racing, I have a bigger budget for wine than the race cars, but don't have hangovers. LOL.
Maybe I can get Trader Joe's to sponsor me and then I can give out free samples after the races. Ha Ha Ha.
Tom G.
-
Just trying to follow this has got me in the scotch early.
Have fun Dan.
:cheers:
-
So thats where that wonderful voice came from! Happy Turkey Day to you, Glen.
Don't forget the nap before the pie............... :-D
-
Sounds like a hangover to me. LOL I won't buy anything cheaper at Trader Joe's than their own brand wine which is $4 a bottle. Maybe that is why I am not racing, I have a bigger budget for wine than the race cars, but don't have hangovers. LOL.
Maybe I can get Trader Joe's to sponsor me and then I can give out free samples after the races. Ha Ha Ha.
Tom G.
After? Tom, nothing quenches your thirst more than cheap wine... hey Stan, pass me a box of that pink stuff :roll:
:cheers:
-
Thanks for early look at the rules, as this has stopped me before I got too far. This one has me befuddled: Modified Production class
"Perimeter type frame engine cradle tubes must remain unmodified." But it says you can change the steering head angle (not in my plans), which would be cutting and welding on the spars. Also, earlier in the paragraph it says it's ok to remove or modify brackets. Soooo, can you take the various wire harness and bodywork brackets off the perimeter tubes (sharp little guys that stick out the sides)? I've also had to move the rear upper shock mount, to do the engine swap, but that appears to still be ok.
Can you add brackets or mounts onto the original unmodified spars? I'd rather weld my new engine mounts on direct, as opposed to running long tubes from another area, but I'll work around as necessary. It doesn't appear the we are trying to prevent engine swaps (same brand), but if new mounts can't be added...hmmm. :?
Thoughts? Talk to Van, Tom or Matt? I'll try an email.
Regards, JimL
-
"Talk to Van, Tom or Matt? I'll try an email" - Yes
Jim - best idea is to go to the source.
DW
-
Thanks Dan, I did send an email to Van. I'll hold off on any more work on that bike, and work on the current A- bike while I'm waiting.
This "retirement" stuff is strange; busier than I ever was while "working". More to do than time allows; reminds me of my 2-stroke days, when they'd run faster and faster until they seized (errrr, sorry folks, bad comparison for some of us "seniors")!
JimL
-
After some pushing the rule changes are now on the SCTA-BNI website, www.scta-bni.org. Click Whats New in left hand margin.
DW
-
After some pushing the rule changes are now on the SCTA-BNI website, www.scta-bni.org. Click Whats New in left hand margin.
DW
Dan...I think the wording is wrong on competition coupe wings.
5.D.1 '' The lowest portion of wing shall be AT LEAST 6in. above the higest point of the body''.
Shouldn't that read NO MORE than 6 in. above the highest point of body?
As it now states any wing would have to be AT LEAST 6 in above the roof line.
If our Camaro was a comp coup I would like to have the wing mounted 6-12'' above the deck lid or below the roof
line. Not 20'' min.above the deck.
JL222
-
This "retirement" stuff is strange; busier than I ever was while "working". More to do than time allows; reminds me of my 2-stroke days, when they'd run faster and faster until they seized (errrr, sorry folks, bad comparison for some of us "seniors")!
JimL
Jim there are just not enough days in the hours! :-(
Run till you seize - wait to cool off - then run again! Ring-ding-ding! :cheers:
-
John,
The rule is written as submitted by George Fields and Tom Burkland. As I wrote before, contact them if you think the design is wrong. Doesn't make sense to me either but, I have no control.
DW
-
John,
The rule is written as submitted by George Fields and Tom Burkland. As I wrote before, contact them if you think the design is wrong. Doesn't make sense to me either but, I have no control.
DW
Must make sense to anyone that voted for it :roll:
Limits on wing height are usually on how high their mounted not how low.
No limit on heigth ....WOW unbelievable :-o
JL222
-
"Wing width including side plates shall not be wider than the outside width of the body. The maximum allowable height of the wing including side plates shall not exceed 65 in. from the ground as measured to the highest part of the wing. The rear of the wing including side plates may not be set back more than 18 in. behind the rear of the body. The lowest portion of the wing shall be at least 6 in. above the highest point of the body. The total wing area (measured by the fore-to-aft dimension times the side-to-side dimension on the top surface) shall not exceed 1152 square in. Multiple element wings are NOT allowed.
The portion in red looks like a maximum height to me. How should that sentence be written?
DW
-
"Wing width including side plates shall not be wider than the outside width of the body. The maximum allowable height of the wing including side plates shall not exceed 65 in. from the ground as measured to the highest part of the wing. The rear of the wing including side plates may not be set back more than 18 in. behind the rear of the body. The lowest portion of the wing shall be at least 6 in. above the highest point of the body. The total wing area (measured by the fore-to-aft dimension times the side-to-side dimension on the top surface) shall not exceed 1152 square in. Multiple element wings are NOT allowed.
The portion in red looks like a maximum height to me. How should that sentence be written?
DW
Yea right there in plain sight :-P
But I still don't know the reasoning of the minimum height rule,which should be rewritten to be a minimum of 6 in. from
deck lid, or the minimum height taken out.
JL222
-
Just a guess John, but it might be to stop the construction of tunnels.
Pete
-
I have no idea as to why the wing design is written that way. You would have to ask the authors.
DW
-
Just a guess John, but it might be to stop the construction of tunnels.
Pete
I think Pete hit the nail on the head. I think they don't want you energizing the bottom. :evil: Tony
-
Or it could be as simple as George doesn't have a rear deck...... :evil: And that is who purposed the rule.
-
I was trying to visualize what the rule would look like.
Maximum height 65", minimum above highest point of body 6".
I'd say that it works well for that car, but is it workable for all in the class??
Mike
-
A problem with people who propose rules. They don't give a fig for you, its their ox.
This rule has been bantered about for a few years. George's stick-to-it-ness got it thru this year. As badly written as it is.
Once again, may I suggest you contact the authors with your concerns.
Hey - how about an Aerodynamic Committee? Volunteers?
DW
-
My club (LSR) voted against this rule change, but as you can see......... :roll:
-
"Hey - how about an Aerodynamic Committee? Volunteers?"
I thought I was the Head Stirer.
Stan
-
Sometimes you have to scramble to stay on top Stan! :-D :-D :-D
Pete
-
Maybe the Frances have some spare time to help with that Dan? :-D :-o
-
Every rule change that is not done for safety generally provides an advantage for a competitor and a disadvantage for another competitor.
-
Hey - how about an Aerodynamic Committee? Volunteers?
DW
Sounds good. I'm up for it, if we can have the meetings at my place
G
-
"Change is good", well yes sometimes it is, but not always.
I applaud the SCTA rules and its rules committee for being forward thinking, especially when it comes to rules regarding safety.
Some of you who know my history might want to dispute that statement, but in reality, I do not oppose rule change, only rule change when the fix hasn't been identified or been established.
Keeping in mind that any SCTA club member can initiate a rule change which, for better or worse, can be greatly influenced through "good old boy" relationships, I still favor how the rules are and can be changed.
The majority of voting club members, along with the appointed rules committee are amongst the most active and experienced members of our racing fraternity, and are out to try and keep our sport thriving, while keeping us safe at the same time.
I don't pretend to know the what if's or what not's of the "wing rule", but as I posted on this site several months ago, "who better to make up a rule to make Comp Coupe safer than the entrants who race in that class". God knows that if there is any class that needs help in safety, it is the comp coupe class.
I am sure that as with any political discourse, most of the people affected were too f--king lazy to offer any help with making the suggested new rule.
The good thing about our rule process is that they can now kick the can, bitch about what is, and hopefully make the rule better.
Bob Drury
-
"Every rule change that is not done for safety generally provides an advantage for a competitor and a disadvantage for another competitor."
You've pretty well hit the nail on the head, Stainless. That's probably why some rule changes lately have been phrased as safety changes.
Stan
-
Every year in the rules meeting ALL proposals are discussed. If a proposal is made that would benefit a single competitor(the proposer) and is clearly transparent that it would benefit that person only it is rejected right away so that we can move on.
DW
-
Or nullify another effort.......................................ahem, Saltcat. Just saying :-D :wink:
-
Trent,
If the details were known that comment would have been unnecessary.
Contact the team if you must be 'in the know'
I sign - disappointed,
DW
-
Trent,
If the details were known that comment would have been unnecessary.
Contact the team if you must be 'in the know'
I sign - disappointed,
DW
It is all in smart aleck jest, we have all been through it before and I mean no ill will but echo the sentiment of many Dan. :-)
-
Understood - May Joanie and I wish all a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.
I must express these thoughts early because we are boarding a ship in a couple of weeks to holiday in the Bahamas - one of the pleasures of grown kids.
DW
-
Have fun on the boat Dan! :cheers:
-
Have a fun trip, Dan, and drink lots of their "good" wine and skip the 2 Buck Chuck. And Merry Christmas. [Hope the cuss filter didn't get that].
Doug :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:
-
Have a fun trip, Dan, and drink lots of their "good" wine and skip the 2 Buck Chuck. And Merry Christmas. [Hope the cuss filter didn't get that].
Doug :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:
Dan
The bad news is you don't find a lot of good wine in the Caribbean.... :| the good news is the always have good beer and great rum... some with those cute little umbrellas to keep the warm sunshine off your drink.
It was great to see Joanie at the salt this year, both of you have a terrific trip and a very Happy Christmas.... and of course a Merry New Year
:cheers:
-
We found the Chilean wines served in the Caribbean areas to be most drinkable. Had a hard time getting used to it being served in glass bottles as opposed to our preferred cardboard-clad plastic bladders.
-
We found the Chilean wines served in the Caribbean areas to be most drinkable. Had a hard time getting used to it being served in glass bottles as opposed to our preferred cardboard-clad plastic bladders.
Been a fan of wines from Argentina and Chile for some time. :cheers:
-
Have a fun trip, Dan, and drink lots of their "good" wine and skip the 2 Buck Chuck. And Merry Christmas. [Hope the cuss filter didn't get that].
Doug :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:
A freind , Bville racer and about 10 others go to a cabin every fall at Shaver Lake in the Sierra mts behind me to do maintenance, get it ready for winter ect.
The owners son is a wine connoisseur [took me 10 min to spell that one] so Bud brings out a bottle of 2 Buck Chuck
and says ''lets have a blind taste'' :-D
The guy taste it, and his good stuff, and says ''this is definitely the good stuff!!'' 2 Buck Chuck :-o
JL222 :cheers:
They even invited him back the next year :-D
-
With Dan being gone this seems like a good time to bring up a subject that many of us often forget including me, and that is respect.
One of the problems with being online is responding to a previous post before thinking the subject through. I know that I have often been guilty of this very thing.
Keep in mind that Dan (who has to spend a lot of time answering and trying to explain new rules or rewritten rules that he has no say in to those of us who are not quite smart enough to understand them.
I can truely understand everyones concerns and angst when it comes to new or modified rules, but keep in mind that NO individual is responsible for them.
To make a example, a lot of our fellow racers seem to have great concern about the new WING rule in competition coupe.
This is a rule that was written by people who either have currently, or have had a Comp Coupe vehicle.
Apparently some folks who don't have a dog in this fight have taken great humbrage with how the new rule is written.
I wuld like to suggest that we all who don't race in this class, refrain from commenting on the new rule change, as it doen't pertain to our classes.
What I am trying to say here is this: lets all cut the rule makers a little slack, especially when its not a class we run in.
I think that most of realize what a thankless job making rules and enforcing them is a no-win situation.
Remember, we are all in this together. Bob
-
I agree Bob.
Just remember that Dan chooses to be active on this website to help the competitors understand the rules and the thinking behind them. He doesn't make the rules. Beating on Dan isn't going to get you anywhere as far as getting the rule changed, there are proper procedures for that. :-D :-D :-D
Furthermore, just remember if you do make it to impound the man in charge is Dan. I'm not saying that he would take it out on you but he has the power to and if he had a vengeful attitude he could make your impound experience rather unpleasant. :evil: :evil: :evil:
Pete
-
Furthermore, just remember if you do make it to impound the man in charge is Dan. I'm not saying that he would take it out on you but he has the power to and if he had a vengeful attitude he could make your impound experience rather unpleasant. :evil: :evil: :evil:
Pete
I don't see that happening. Wayno
-
I agree Wayno! I was just sayin'.
Pete
-
We all know Dan is one of the good guys, not saying there are bad ones, just using a figure of speech. I personally APPRECIATE his online presence here and on the HAMB where he fields many of the same questions ON HIS OWN TIME. Time better spent drinking wine and/or beer :wink: :cheers:
-
We haven't left yet - the 17th.
Rum becomes the daily beverage when going off shore. At least now I know what you guts say behind my back. Cool
DW
-
We haven't left yet - the 17th.
Rum becomes the daily beverage when going off shore. At least now I know what you guts say behind my back. Cool
DW
Naw, you just didn't get into the invite-only thread about you :-D :-P
-
Dang, just when I thought we were rid of "old sounding board" he reappears........... :-D
Don't forget the sunsceen, just like Bville........... :roll:
-
I'll just drink Franzia in the box 'til he gets back. Cheers! :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:
-
With Dan being gone this seems like a good time to bring up a subject that many of us often forget including me, and that is respect.
One of the problems with being online is responding to a previous post before thinking the subject through. I know that I have often been guilty of this very thing.
Keep in mind that Dan (who has to spend a lot of time answering and trying to explain new rules or rewritten rules that he has no say in to those of us who are not quite smart enough to understand them.
I can truely understand everyones concerns and angst when it comes to new or modified rules, but keep in mind that NO individual is responsible for them.
To make a example, a lot of our fellow racers seem to have great concern about the new WING rule in competition coupe.
This is a rule that was written by people who either have currently, or have had a Comp Coupe vehicle.
Apparently some folks who don't have a dog in this fight have taken great humbrage with how the new rule is written.
I wuld like to suggest that we all who don't race in this class, refrain from commenting on the new rule change, as it doen't pertain to our classes.
What I am trying to say here is this: lets all cut the rule makers a little slack, especially when its not a class we run in.
I think that most of realize what a thankless job making rules and enforcing them is a no-win situation.
Remember, we are all in this together. Bob
Bob...would it be allright with you to post if someone was considering to run or build a comp coupe?
No sure how many on this forum run comp coupe or have replied, but if nobody objected the ruling would be thought
to be beyond inprovement.
Then you have racers that consider what Peter Jack says and would never post a disagreement with a ruling.
JL222
-
John, here in a nutshell is what I am saying.
Every member of the SCTA either recieved or had available to him or her the proposed new rules before they were voted on.
If anyone had a bitch, then they should have got off there butt and made some noise about it.
As you should recall, thanks to input from Me, yourself and a few others, we got the lateral restraint rule reduced by two inches after the rule was written.
That was a lucky break for all of us.
I just don't think that we should have a bitch about any rule after it is written, unless it is something blatenly in error or misguided. If thats the case, then the proper people on the rules committee should be informed as was done with the lateral helmet restraint.
To those who are thinking about building or entering a car in comp coupe I would say: Here are the current rules and if you don't like them, wait two years and get the rule changed.
There is nothing that says anyone in the class has to run a wing at all.
It is simply a rule written by folks who are trying to deal with how to prevent any more tragic blow overs and make the class safer for all........... Bob
-
Every rule change that is not done for safety generally provides an advantage for a competitor and a disadvantage for another competitor.
Well said and essentially true!
When SCTA created the CLASSIC category there was some controversy but I have always supported the logic of it. As the OEMs designed better aero, the cars in the 60’s and 70's started to fall behind. Classic was a great way to not obsolete a large groups of cars and still keep them running. Also, the nostalgia factor is important for many and CLASSIC provides a venue for that. Now I see, with one sweeping blow, the entire paragraph that addresses the reason for CLASSIC in the first place has been deleted! Foreign cars are now allowed. I would like to know what car some SCTA associate is planning to run. This is not a complaint, only a request from another competitor. I would like to find a foreign car so I can give them some competition. What is this super slick foreign coupe that is now in CLASSIC?
-
Two things you're missing.
1) When classic came to be (I was an opponent) the SCTA left some older foreign cars out. They asked to be included in classic this year as they too were no longer competitive in the classes they were running in.
2) You will note that they are only allowed to run in "F" and under
My point of view is why not? We already have classic, why can't a Karmin Ghia run? Should it run against a Honda S2000?
The other thing that comes to mind is the rule change process goes to all the clubs and they vote on the changes, not 5 guys huddled in a corner plotting.
Also the 2012 rules have been posted for quite some time, stay informed my friends. Remember when we didn't know what was going on until May!
-
I hate to see text like . . . coupe sand sedans from the “Golden Era” of American automobile production” or . . . popular Muscle Car years of Camaro, Mustangs, and Chargers deleted and wiped clean from the rule book! Although I see your point, Mike. If there are a bunch of body styles that are falling behind and can’t compete with current OEM designs I would want to see a workable category for them so they could keep racing.
However, the “F” motor limitation is not likely a permanent restriction and shouldn’t be a justification for including them in the Category. When Classic was first introduced I think the smallest motor was “D”. It wasn’t long before “E and F” showed up. Actually, I think any motor allowed in Modified should be allowed in Classic. Although, with the current Classic motor-mod rules. There are a lot of mechanical Hilborns and carbs out there still looking for a place to reside. :-D