Landracing Forum
Bonneville Salt Flats Discussion => SCTA Rule Questions => Topic started by: desotoman on August 22, 2013, 07:07:54 PM
-
Just a heads up if you were thinking of submitting a Rule Change, you only have a little over a week to get it into the SCTA. Deadline is September 1 2013.
Tom G.
Online link to form: http://www.scta-bni.org/Forms/rulechg2010.html
SCTA Rulebook Change Request:
The SCTA has a formal and specific rule change process in place. Below is a simplified summary of that process.
Rule change requests can be submitted to the SCTA office by using the online form, by email, and may also be sent to the SCTA office via the USPS (snail mail)
The Rules coordinator reviews the request for completeness and fowards the request to the appropriate Tech Chairman and vehicle committee for review and recommended action. There are committees for each class of vehicle (i.e.: Coupes & Sedans, Special Construction, Motorcycles, etc) and for technical.
At the November or December SCTA Board meeting, all rules committee approved rule change requests are individually presented to and voted on by the SCTA board. The board approved changes are posted on the SCTA website and submitted to the Rulebook Coordinator for inclusion in the next years rulebook.
-
Good news!
Sam
-
I submitted two such requests earlier this week. They wouldn't actually change any requirements, but just clarify how things are written in the rule book. I've already been contacted by three different SCTA officials, so we'll see what happens.
-
I think I got the lug nut non-ferris wheels item straight at SW, with out trying to change the wording. Thanks, Nathan, Kiwi Paul, and Kiwi Steve.
Steve
-
Steve--It was great to meet and talk with you (and Jasper...) this year. I`m happy to have learnt some stuff as a result of our consult, and happy to talk to you at Salt talks.... :cheers:
-
At last night's board meeting Mike Manghelli asked that any submitters not sit on their submission until the last minute on Sept. 1st. He has 3 car and 3 bike changes so far.
DW
-
Thanks for the heads up, Tom!
That link doesn't work for me-I get a 404 error.
I did find it at this link:
http://fs16.formsite.com/sctabni/form1/index.html
-
Thanks for the heads up, Tom!
That link doesn't work for me-I get a 404 error.
I did find it at this link:
http://fs16.formsite.com/sctabni/form1/index.html
Thanks Buddy, The SCTA site has done that to me a couple of times this month, first time was the link to the audio for speedweek.
Thanks for posting the new link.
Tom G.
-
Getting kinda late for it -- but I think it might be a good adea to present the changes on this forum, for a number of reasons . . .
Might help build support for an idea.
Might help clarify the proposal.
Might result that the rule is already covered somewhere else, etc.
-
Stan, good idea!
Here is the change I proposed, for what it's worth. I'm hoping SCTA clubs will support me on it!
Rule Definition: 4.R, Page 44
Rulebook issue:
4.R A hood scoop is a functional air intake device used on full body, un-blown vehicles, where allowed. No part of a forward facing hood scoop can extend forward of the leading edge of the hood, be more than 11" above the surface of the hood at the centerline or extend past the trailing edge of the hood more than 11" at the centerline.
I believe a scoop on a blown car should be allowed 11" above the blower intake, not the hood, so to have the same advantages as on an unblown car.
Desired outcome:
To give blown cars the same advantage/disadvantage of 11" clearance over the hood or air intake, depending on which is higher.
Reason for change:
Unblown cars are allowed a hood scoop 11" in height over the hood. A blown car often has an intake sticking 6' or so out of the hood. I believe blown cars should receive full benefit of 11" over the intake, in that case, not the hood. If a blown car has a scoop taller than 11", in Comp Coupe, instead of the 11" behind trailing edge of the hood, it must end at the cowl. I believe blown cars should receive the same advantage/disadvantage of 11" clearance of whatever is higher-the hood or air intake.
Any side effects:
Side effects will be innovation, restyling, and more efficient hood scoops.
Desired rewording:
A hood scoop is a functional air intake device used on full body, blown and un-blown vehicles, where allowed. No part of a forward facing hood scoop can extend forward of the leading edge of the hood, be more than 11" above the surface of the hood at the centerline or extend past the trailing edge of the hood more than 11" at the centerline. Blown cars are allowed 11" above hood, or air intake, whichever is higher.
-
Why does a blown car need a hood scoop when you are bringing your own air with you? Sounds like an aero device to me. Different classes, different rules.
DW
-
Dan, our hood scoop is sized specifically for the amount of air we need.
Granted, a scoop gives better aero than just the blower sticking through the hood, but isn't the point of what we do is to get the best aero, so as to achieve the best speed possible?
Dan, do you really believe that unblown cars only use the scoops for air intake? If that were truly the case, the wouldn't be able to run within 1/2" of the windshield, directing air over the top of the car, and reducing their CD.
Dan, for the sake of argument, let's assume you are right, and it's truly only an aero device (it isn't).
Since racers are always trying to find a legal, better way to improve speeds, the aero aspect by itself should be reason enough for support.
There have been blown cars in the past, that were able to take advantage of this-Hooley's comes to mind.
I'm asking for support from ALL of the SCTA clubs and their members. Please ask questions with your concerns about this proposal, and post your opinions.
-
This hood scoop thing is a nightmare. There are multiple problems.
First, most "scoops" aren't scoops at all. They're covers and they're covering the parts of the engine that stick through the hood. The requirement that they be a 1/2" off the windshield is to make sure that those "scoops" are actually somewhat functional in that they at least allow some air to get to the engine. Any rear facing "scoop" that physically touches or even bolts to the windshield is not a scoop; it's an aero device. It's only purpose is to direct air. A true hood scoop should solely be used to deliver intake air to the engine but some savvy (or maybe cunning) racers have conned their way into running aero devices disguised as hood scoops. Aero devices are limited to the rules of each particular class. I can certainly imagine these types of aero devices being allowed in Comp Coupe/Mod Sport but not in the any other classes.
Second, why should blown cars be limited from having a real true hood scoop? Since when did all blowers stick out of the hood? There are plenty of turbocharged and centrifugally supercharged "blown" cars that would like some fresh air too. There was an early Mustang at Speed Week with a Paxton blower that had a rear facing cowl induction hood scoop. THAT'S illegal?? Really?
As best I can tell, the hood scoop definition is written now such that it lends towards hood scoops actually being functional air intake devices and not aero devices. I think the mix up is the fact that it says hood scoops are only for unblown cars which is ridiculous IMHO. Hood scoops should be hood scoops... and do they really need to go to the roof? 11" above whatever is highest? That's a bit much. You'll have hood scoops that are taller than the cars themselves! I think Hooley got in and out before the hammer got dropped and may in fact wind up being the genesis of this whole deal. Did you notice that there was no hood scoop on his car this year?
Stepping away from ten foot tall hood scoops for a moment... what's even more concerning to me are roadsters that have head rest fairings that completely cover the roll cage. That's pushing "head rest fairings" a little far. I can see them being okay on a mod roadster but on a regular roadster, it's an abomination.
-
Speaking of hood scoops.... I heard your hood scoop needed a hood scoop. :-o
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-LYcaecSF8AU/UhT8vDIiNUI/AAAAAAAACRs/GWBUZEDjRus/w1239-h929-no/P1100005.JPG)
This things got two hood scoops... well only one really. I'm guessing the forward facing one delivers air to the engine and the rear facing one that's as tall as the top of the car is the aero device. Is streamlining ahead of the cowl allowed in GT? Or is this okay since it's obviously got a 180 deg hood scoop that picks up air from the front and the back. :roll:
-
Nathan, you bring up some good points. I agree, that the way I’ve proposed the word change, it would only work for Comp Coupe/Mod Sport . Those should be fast classes, so if a team benefits from aero, great! That is what this is about right-rounding off every corner to try and go faster?
If a person is running a lower profile car, like a Camaro or Firebird, the 11” rule allows for the scoop to reach about level with the top of the car-a pretty good dual device, that allows for air intake, and aero.
Running a higher profile car, has it’s disadvantages, one of them being the hood scoop allows for less aero.
Our scoop fits over the birdcatcher, and directs the air into the mouth of it. Does the scoop give us some aero? Absolutely! From what I’ve seen, almost all of the scoops out there are being used for aero, even if the main purpose is air induction.
I’m simply trying to even the playing field. I like old iron, and would like to see the old iron running in the faster classes, not just Vettes, Firebirds, Jags, etc.
I don’t think the fact that aero could be benefited from this proposal makes it taboo-rather, I think it should make it more attractive.
Well, unless one has a record that would be threatened, then I suppose it wouldn’t sound so great!
…..but it’s a LOT better than those computer based, boost referenced ignitions running in vintage, that we can’t seem to get rid of! :wink:
-
Tomorrow is the last Day for submitting a rule change. Don't procrastinate if you are thinking about a change. It is now or next year.
Tom G.
-
I got 'em in. Why do early what you can do on the due date? :-D
…..but it’s a LOT better than those computer based, boost referenced ignitions running in vintage, that we can’t seem to get rid of! :wink:
It's very strange actually. Everyone pretty much agrees to the fact that computers should not be allowed in vintage but then there are those that still want to be able to use their Electromotive XDI or MSD DIS ignitions which are definitely computers. How can they say no computers in vintage but then use a computer? It's the most bass-ackward logic defying mess I've ever heard.
-
Nathan,
I meant to add a rule change proposal on ignitions, but forgot about it. I sure hope someone else did!!??
-
Buddy,
It is not too late. You have until Midnight tonight.
Tom G.
-
Buddy,
It is not too late. You have until Midnight tonight.
Tom G.
Tom, Nathan, I'm on the road without a rulebook! If someone would be kind enough to send or post the info I need-rule number, verbiage, pgge number, I'll get it submitted. That rule HAS to be one of the most abused, and misinterpreted rules in the book!
-
I don't understand. The rulebook clearly states "any" ignition, seems simple to me.
DW
-
Dan, you're a funny guy! :cheers:
Guys, I need the rule and page, if someone could send it or post it, please!
-
Guys, I need the rule and page, if someone could send it or post it, please!
Buddy,
Try this.
Tom G.
-
And if you don't like that try this. :wink: Page 19, 2.A.1
For reasons of economy and historical authenticity, vintage engine modifications are restricted to older technology levels, so far as is practical. Accordingly, in classes XO, XF, XXF, XXO, V4, V4F, using vintage bodies:
1. Turbochargers are not permitted;
2. Computers are allowed for data collection purposes only;
3. Electronic fuel injection prohibited;
4. Any ignition system may be used.
Note: See exception under rules for Vintage Oval Track Category.
Don, the slow typer
-
Tom, Don,- THANK YOU!
I've submitted a rule change proposal, so we'll see if anyone even cares about it enough to get it changed.
Rulebook Issue: (255 characters or less) *
Any ignition system may be used
Rulebook Section: *
2.A.1
Rulebook Page: *
19
Desired Outcome: (255 characters or less) *
Currently, some vintage car owners have decided computers and micro-processors are being used, due to the 'any ignition' statement
Reason for Change: (255 characters or less) *
To keep and maintain the integrity of the vintage class
Any Side Effects: (255 characters or less) *
Computer based and micro-processor based ignitions will be removed from the vintage class
Desired Rewording of Rule: (255 characters or less) *
Any ignition, not utilizing a computer or micro-processor, may be used.
Last Update
2013-09-01 15:58:13
Start Time
2013-09-01 15:06:52
Finish Time
2013-09-01 15:58:13
-
Buddy,
Desired wording is pretty broad, open ended. If the details are not there the change request will be rejected. This is the reason a change was not made last year. In case you are wondering, I have no input at the meeting, I am just passing on 30 years of experience in attending this meeting.
DW
-
Dan, thanks for the input! Having never been to one of these meetings, it's hard to know what to write, or what to expect.
I did send a follow up to my initial submission, but I don't know if it will help. Desotoman originally word this description, and I 'borrowed' it.
here is the follow up I sent:
The form is very restrictive, as it is hard to get everything explained in 250 words.
Is it possible that this alternative wording could also be included for consideration?
Computers are allowed for data collection purposes only, No computer controlled devices (microprocessors) of any kind affecting and or controlling engine operation will be permitted.
My goal is simply to clarify the rule, and to see that the vintage 'spirit' is upheld.
-
Tom, Don,- THANK YOU!
I've submitted a rule change proposal, so we'll see if anyone even cares about it enough to get it changed.
Rulebook Issue: (255 characters or less) *
Any ignition system may be used
Rulebook Section: *
2.A.1
Rulebook Page: *
19
Desired Outcome: (255 characters or less) *
Currently, some vintage car owners have decided computers and micro-processors are being used, due to the 'any ignition' statement
Reason for Change: (255 characters or less) *
To keep and maintain the integrity of the vintage class
Any Side Effects: (255 characters or less) *
Computer based and micro-processor based ignitions will be removed from the vintage class
Desired Rewording of Rule: (255 characters or less) *
Any ignition, not utilizing a computer or micro-processor, may be used.
Last Update
2013-09-01 15:58:13
Start Time
2013-09-01 15:06:52
Finish Time
2013-09-01 15:58:13
Oh joy! I'm so stoked that another round of vintage ignition debate has begun. I had absolutely nothing better to do than spend my off season discussing a moot point... again.
First off, I'm glad the digitalphobes have fessed up and acknowledged that this is a rule CHANGE and not a rule CLARIFICATION. This is an important point because changing the rule would require dozens of competitors to reengineer their entire cars over what is truly a non-issue.
The fact is simply this ~ the rules in these classes also require a CARBURETOR or MECHANICAL fuel injection. EFI is not allowed! What, for gods sake can a oxygen sensor adjust on a CARBURATED car during the course of a run? Why the unfounded paranoia?
Even though it's a non-issue, there is a very simple solution to the concerns about possible black magic performed by ignition boxes. Simply add the following to the exiting rule~
Any ignition may be used as long as it doesn't receive electronic feedback and/or change preset ignition parameters during the course of a run.
This is the rule change that I have proposed.
It's very simple, very easy, very painless COMPROMISE that addresses everyone's issue. Compromise... you've heard of that right?
If not, here's the definition -
noun an agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions.
"an ability to listen to two sides in a dispute, and devise a compromise acceptable to both"
Now, of course, this doesn't address those who are concerned about the 'purity' or the 'spirit' of the vintage classes, but come on... what is truly vintage about ANY of the cars breaking records in these classes? Maybe we should go back to recapped tires, and milk crates for seats, and ban fire systems, data loggers, and helmets while we're at it. Buddy, I've looked closely at your car, and you have to admit, it's no more 'vintage' than most of the other competitive cars currently running in vintage classes these days.
FACT ~ There is no difference WHAT SO EVER between pre-programming an ignition curve into an ignition box and using an old Sun machine to do the exact same thing on a distributor.
So please, acknowledge the real concern about the wording of existing rule, add a few words to address those fears, and let's all move on and simply go racing.
COMPROMISE... Try it, you'll like it!
:cheers: Pedro
-
Oh joy! I'm so stoked that another round of vintage ignition debate has begun. I had absolutely nothing better to do than spend my off season discussing a moot point... again.
Haha! The best defense is a good offense, huh? Attack and act indignant!
First off, I'm glad the digitalphobes have fessed up and acknowledged that this is a rule CHANGE and not a rule CLARIFICATION. This is an important point because changing the rule would require dozens of competitors to reengineer their entire cars over what is truly a non-issue.
Well, Pedro, call it what you want. I didn't see the form or deadline for the Rule Clarification, so I went this route.
The fact is simply this ~ the rules in these classes also require a CARBURETOR or MECHANICAL fuel injection. EFI is not allowed! What, for gods sake can a oxygen sensor adjust on a CARBURATED car during the course of a run? Why the unfounded paranoia?
Hmmm, do I really need to answer this? Do you REALLY think sidetracks will throw people off that easily? The O2 can be used to control timing-that part has nothing to do with a CARB or MECHANICAL fuel injection. It could also be used for H2O injection, and probably numerous other functions, if one got creative.
Probably the biggest abuse out there is referencing timing to boost- but you already know that.
Even though it's a non-issue, there is a very simple solution to the concerns about possible black magic performed by ignition boxes. Simply add the following to the exiting rule~
Any ignition may be used as long as it doesn't receive electronic feedback and/or change preset ignition parameters during the course of a run.
This is the rule change that I have proposed.
It's very simple, very easy, very painless COMPROMISE that addresses everyone's issue. Compromise... you've heard of that right?
If not, here's the definition -
noun an agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions.
"an ability to listen to two sides in a dispute, and devise a compromise acceptable to both"
Thank you for the definition. I'm sure none of us here would have ever considered such a thing! LOL!
Now, of course, this doesn't address those who are concerned about the 'purity' or the 'spirit' of the vintage classes, but come on... what is truly vintage about ANY of the cars breaking records in these classes? Maybe we should go back to recapped tires, and milk crates for seats, and ban fire systems, data loggers, and helmets while we're at it. Buddy, I've looked closely at your car, and you have to admit, it's no more 'vintage' than most of the other competitive cars currently running in vintage classes these days.
That may well be true, but it does meet all of the rules-even the ambiguous ignition rule!
FACT ~ There is no difference WHAT SO EVER between pre-programming an ignition curve into an ignition box and using an old Sun machine to do the exact same thing on a distributor.
That depends on what parameters are used. Programming a curve that retards the timing at X PSI, or that adds or subtracts timing at X RPM is certainly different.
So please, acknowledge the real concern about the wording of existing rule, add a few words to address those fears, and let's all move on and simply go racing.
COMPROMISE... Try it, you'll like it!
Pedro, I've had the opportunity to sit, chat, and drink beer with you. Your a bright guy, a good guy, and I truly think you're wording is a good COMPROMISE, even if it's not my first choice.
Good luck with it! :cheers:
You are obviously very passionate about our sport, and that's wonderful! Please just don't let your passion blind you-this is a good clarification of the ignition rule, IMHO, even if it's not best for every car and driver.
-
Buddy, Great talking to you on the phone today. Nothing like two strong, passionate, personalities, eh? Let's do it over a beer next time though. :cheers: Pedro
-
Pedro, I agree! :cheers:
I'll get the first round!
-
I don't understand. The rulebook clearly states "any" ignition, seems simple to me.
It must be true for it's written in the rule book. Seems simple to me too. The rule book also clearly states that hood scoops are for unblown vehicles only but there's a particular turbocharged VW pickup truck with a rear facing hood scoop that's been setting records for years. How can that be if hood scoops are only allowed on unblown vehicles? Who decides if a vehicle that's clearly illegal by the black and white wording in the book is still able to set records? Do certain rules only apply to certain competitors? How does one know which rules apply to them?
Or is it that we maybe know that saying that only unblown cars can have hood scoops is kinda ridiculous and the true intent of the rule, regardless of the words in the book, isn't to prohibit the use of hood scoops on blown cars? Which is king: intent or printed word?
As for vintage engines, rule 2.Q is pretty clear in that computers aren't allowed on vintage engines and rule 2 under 2.A.1 also says no computers. So, there are two very specific points in the book that say no computers on vintage engines in vintage bodies. Seems simple to me - the words are black and white and they say no computers. Oh but there is that one sentence that says "any" ignition may be used. Well gee, that's a bit of a conflict isn't it? Or maybe it's that any ignition may be used so long as it isn't a computer like 2.Q and 2.A.1/2 says. How will we ever know? Everyone with their opinion seems to think they know but I think you really can't go wrong to ask the person who wrote those rules what they're meant to mean. That's what the committee chairs are for aren't they?
To save everyone the suspense of wondering what was really meant to be, it's that computers aren't allowed! If we're really going to follow what one sentence says against two other sentences that clearly spell out a requirement in the contrary, then I presume that those who have set records illegally (including turbocharged vehicles with hood scoops) will rightfully rescind their records. After all, we should all be judged from the same book as it is written, right?
-
I just don't get the hood-scoop quandary either. It doesn't apply to us at the moment but if an unblown car can have a hood scoop that goes to withing 1/2 inch of the windshield why does a blown car's hood scoop have to stop at the cowl. Why can't the unblown one stop 1/2 inch from the windshield also?
If one is drawing air from the high pressure area by the windshield then why also have a forward facing scoop like Nathan showed in one post. Maybe choose one or the other if that is the case, but I have no problem with someone doing whatever in that respect and you could show that you are 'scooping' air from both locations.
When John and I designed (John built it) the one on Hooley's car I felt it was legal at the time. I don't remember the current confusing wording. Of course we made it a functional working air scoop with a designed input area, but also made it an aero device which is/was allowed in comp coupe.
I'd say make the wording apply to hood scoops regardless of if they are blown, unblown, comp coup or any other car and not let the blown ones fall under streamling when that doesn't apply to a number of blown cars anyway.
Now I can't expect much since I didn't partake in sending in a new/modified rule wording :cry:. I guess I'm lazy since it doesn't apply to us anymore. We will cover the carb hat and tubing to it at some point, but it won't go past the cowl.
This will be interesting to follow.
On the ignition thing the 'any ignition' does open the door to the possibility of some very sophisticated ignition systems using coil on plug that could easily surpass the abilities of something like an MSD box,
Sum
-
I don't understand. The rulebook clearly states "any" ignition, seems simple to me.
As for vintage engines, rule 2.Q is pretty clear in that computers aren't allowed on vintage engines and rule 2 under 2.A.1 also says no computers. So, there are two very specific points in the book that say no computers on vintage engines in vintage bodies. Seems simple to me - the words are black and white and they say no computers. Oh but there is that one sentence that says "any" ignition may be used. Well gee, that's a bit of a conflict isn't it? Or maybe it's that any ignition may be used so long as it isn't a computer like 2.Q and 2.A.1/2 says. How will we ever know? Everyone with their opinion seems to think they know but I think you really can't go wrong to ask the person who wrote those rules what they're meant to mean. That's what the committee chairs are for aren't they?
To save everyone the suspense of wondering what was really meant to be, it's that computers aren't allowed!
As I said in the rule change form I submitted, this ongoing issue (since 2009 in our case) simply needs to be put to bed once and for all. There is no bigger buzz kill than being in impound and being told you might be protested over something you have been told is legal for six straight years. From what I understand, the board, not the committee chair has the final say, and it seems as though the two are at odds with each other regarding the interpretation of this rule. Indeed, the board wouldn't even vote on the rule last year. A simple wording change, with a compromise addressing your and your dad's concern regarding digital ignition boxes, would easily solve the problem and we can simply all move on once and for all. No one is right or wrong on this, and digging our heels in obviously isn't working too well. The issue lies in the simple fact that over the years several competitors have been told that their digital ignition boxes were indeed legal. This includes approval from your dad, the committee chair, when he visited out pits with DW in 2009. So, the real issue is, as you point out, the interpretation of the rules. Obviously, you clearly see it one way, and others see it, and have been told, another. The rule simply needs to be written so that your concerns regarding digital ignitions are addressed. A very simple, very easy compromise will finally put this to rest so we can focus on what's important... drinking beer :cheers:
-
The rule change proposals went out to the clubs and members last night, so we'll see what happens now.