Landracing Forum
Bonneville Salt Flats Discussion => SCTA Rule Questions => Topic started by: jl222 on August 23, 2014, 01:37:17 PM
-
Working on the wording for adding more spill plates on spoilers than the 2 now allowed on ends. Ralley cars have several along spoiler and have amazing handling in loose conditions.
I think this would result in fewer spins and a safer meet.
Deadline for rule changes Sept 1st.
JL222
-
As you mention the WRC style multi fin spoilers have proven to be highly effective at high angles of attack (ie way sideways).
They behave similar to grid fin stabilizers used on some weapon systems for the same reason.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_fin
aftermarket clone of the WRC spoiler design
http://www.diytrade.com/china/pd/2454532/Subaru_Impreza_8_9th_WRC_Style_Spoiler.html
-
I have two suggestions.
Call what we now call “sill plates”, call them “end plates” or “fences” and the proposed vertical elements, “diverters” or “guides” and apply specifications as to their use.
Or leave the rule as it is and it be understood that those additional vertical elements are “diverters” or “guides” and NOT "sill plates" with no restriction on their use.
My .02 from my 64 sqf of heaven on a Monday morning. :-D
-
Yeah..the wording, their not really spill plates, but as Larry's post points out, fins.
I think in order to pass the specs should remain the same. But as you say, no restriction on how many.
JL222 :cheers:
-
Safety being key - I support this!
-
Have they been allowed for awhile?
(http://i.imgur.com/9AZYX06.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/UQazZ5w.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/UIuKO41.jpg)
Also, in the book I cannot find where it states you can only have two verticals .
-
Have they been allowed for awhile?
No. They've been not not allowed this whole time. It's a bit of a grey area. Not specifically forbidden but also not specifically allowed either. It's called rules creep. Give a racer a foot and before long they'll want a mile. Now they're trying to attempt to tighten up on what specifically is allowed or isn't.
Also, in the book I cannot find where it states you can only have two verticals .
You probably also didn't find where it says that you can have more than two, did you?
-
Also, in the book I cannot find where it states you can only have two verticals .
You probably also didn't find where it says that you can have more than two, did you?
[/quote]
You have to admit Nathan, that Smoky Yunick would have a field day with this rulebook.
-
But if it doesn't say you cant, then why would anyone think you couldn't? I think more and more people are getting tired of guys saying how something is illegal, but there is nothing to the effect in the rule book. With time, comes more and more people with minds, reading between the lines.
-
I have 2 rule books here:
2008, Page 42 4.CC.6 SPOILER
"The side spill plates are allowed..."
2012, Page 47 4.CC.8 SPOILER
"a spill plate on each side of the spoiler is allowed"
Between 2008 and 2012 the rule was given a general rewrite to cleanly incorporate the additional rear spoiler types allowed. I do not remember any discussion of limiting the number of vertical plates allowed but the version in the 2012 book does limit it to "a" spill plate on each side meaning one spill plate on each side where the earlier writing did not. I personally don't believe this was intentional.
JL222, If you have not already submitted this, please do so ASAP to make sure this is considered. If it is not submitted it wont be changed.
-
I don't know if this will work, but here is a copy of the 2014 rule book which allows two different implementation approaches, one figure 9. and one figure 10. Pages 50 and 51.
Tom G.
PS. It worked at least on my computer but you need to click on the image twice for the big picture.
-
jl222, I agree with your idea to change the rule. It seems it would be especially beneficial for a door slammer like yours running the speeds that your car has run.
That being said I also think that a rule change is the best way to go about it. Gotta be careful with too much, "reading between the lines".
-
You have to admit Nathan, that Smoky Yunick would have a field day with this rulebook.
And it seems that lots of new guys think they're Smokey Yunick.
But if it doesn't say you cant, then why would anyone think you couldn't?
But if it doesn't say you CAN then why would anyone think you COULD? Your argument is very weak because the inverse statement is equally valid.
I think more and more people are getting tired of guys saying how something is illegal, but there is nothing to the effect in the rule book. With time, comes more and more people with minds, reading between the lines.
You're right. The more and more new guys that show up that don't know or have any appreciation for how things have been done historically will only go off of the black and white wording in the rule book while the experienced guys will know a bit differently because they have boots-on-ground, ass-in-seat experience. This is why there's an opportunity to fix what some might find to be wrong or lacking in the rule book every year. It's not a perfect system, it's not NHRA, it's not NASCAR or anything else. It IS what it IS. If there's a problem, an attempt should be made to fix it which is what JL is trying to do and countless others have done in the past.
Watch out or you might actually get what you want. The more it's bitch'd about it the more it's going to get fixed and those grey areas that people like to exploit will have a line drawn through them and those who were in the grey will have to see which side of the new line they're on. :wink: :-D
-
Couldn't be any more true Nathan! Being a new guy myself, I've tried Dodge hard to make sure there are no grey areas when it comes to the inspection of my car.
It's a lot easier to make sure everything is up to snuff before I drag my proud new creation hundreds of miles, than try to change what I "thought" was ok out on the salt.
When I get there I'd much rather be racing than trying to modify things with limited time and resources.
-
I am interested in this also. I am in the process of building a new comp coupe and never considered having the "stabilizers"(cuzz they are not spill plates). When building my roadster I asked and was told no stabilizers so I went a different route. However I see roadsters with stabilizers, have they just not been called out on it? Same thing here have these examples shown just not been called on it yet? I try to stay within the "spirit" of a class while still taking every opportunity to build a fast car.
-
Junk, one thing to remember. Tech/safety inspection and body class inspection for record cert or class legality are not the same. If you pass safety tech then you get to run. If something is possibly illegal with your body, then it'll come up if you qualify for a record. Lots of guys run for fun and won't ever set a record so it really doesn't matter. If you're gunnin' for a record though, you better be sure to be out of those grey areas.
Ed, submit a protest and then a decision will be made.
-
I am interested in this also. I am in the process of building a new comp coupe and never considered having the "stabilizers"(cuzz they are not spill plates). When building my roadster I asked and was told no stabilizers so I went a different route. However I see roadsters with stabilizers, have they just not been called out on it? Same thing here have these examples shown just not been called on it yet? I try to stay within the "spirit" of a class while still taking every opportunity to build a fast car.
Why not take advantage of the new 'wings are allowed' rule in comp coupe. The wing can be any size and the stabilizers can be huge. I wouldn't think about not taking advantage of this if I was building a car that was going to run over 200. The only downside is a little more drag and if designed right we are talking about very little compared to the rest of the drag for a comp coupe,
Sum
-
It's not a big enough deal to me to make a fuss over in that particular area. I feel it is not ruled out by current wording. I just did something different to not be in the grey since I was told no. A bigger concern for me is the modifications done to rear wheel wells in coupes. I have been told you can make an access panel to remove rear tire. But it seems a few are taking advantage and recon touring at the same time. My current project would definitely benefit from some contouring here but my interpretation is that is illegal. I will keep the original body shape to be legal and avoid protest and costly fixes.
-
I have been thinking along those lines Sum. That's the thought process I went through on my roadster
-
Rules are generally to show what is NOT allowed. Not generally to show what is allowed. This is pretty much true no matter where you go. Laws in your town, rules at the race track, etc. If something is not allowed, it needs to be spelled out. Same as when saltcat got their record taken away for the port issue. The rules said, any modification to a stock head is allowed except in PRO classes. Well we all know how that turned out......
-
I feel a storm a brewin'...
Records are great, and who wouldn't want one of those snazzy red hats to wear? As long as I get to run my car, have a little fun and maybe set a record or two in the process that's just fine with me. I'm sure there are some out there that just want a record. Nothing wrong with that mentality just as there's nothing wrong with wanting to have a little fun by driving really fast.
If I can be a part of the great history of Bonneville in my own little way, I'll wear one of those little hats with a propeller on it and a spandex union suit, if that's what the SCTA says I need to do to run.
Life is usually about playing by somebody's rules, good, bad, or otherwise. At least here we have the opportunity to change the rules from time to time.
IMHO
WOW! We have veered off topic just a wee bit. Sorry about the jack jl222.
-
And then after the rules committee meeting this same group of online typists will bash the guys who made the changes or not at said meeting. If it was so easy we wouldn't have a couple of pages with different opinions.
Then there's the headlight thread....... :evil:
That's why the SCTA has a rule change procedure and then it goes to the clubs to be voted on. If everyone had their voice on a proposed rule change it would never get done.
Carry on John, sorry for the hijack. Best of luck on your proposal. :cheers:
-
You have to admit Nathan, that Smoky Yunick would have a field day with this rulebook.
And it seems that lots of new guys think they're Smokey Yunick.
Not my point. There are big wide grey areas in the SCTA rulebook. That's all I was trying to say. Unless (and until) there are clearly defined guidelines, there will be guys exploiting the lack thereof. I enjoy this form of racing because it allows for innovation with rare, vintage, and unique equipment. I could just as easily field a NASCAR, but that is not as rewarding as taking the old iron we (our team) like to run and maximizing its potential.
You may have noticed that Bryan (xxobuick) and I are on this forum, asking questions quite often. We don't do that because we like to bend, break, or mangle the rules. Its because in our day to day lives, not following the rules will quite literally make you dead in a big hurry.
Have you seen a NASCAR rulebook? I'm not trying to be rude with this question. The SCTA rulebook is light reading in comparison.
-
I don't know what all the rucuss about the rule book is. After a few rules issues I thought rule 1.A addressed all this. By the way the 2013 NASCAR rule book is 192 pages and not bad reading http://nascarbot.xp3.biz/2013%20Rulebook.pdf
Just curious do some SCTA members still bring bats to the rules meetings? :-o :-o :-o
Now lets get back to the original post about spill plates. Tony
-
I went back and did some more reading just to verify my understanding of the spill plate rule. I would argue that it is actually fairly clear as written. Nowhere does it discuss stabilizers (that is what these are, unless someone can explain otherwise) in my opinion. It discusses spill plates at the ends of the spoiler and what the dimensions may be. Unless it is specifically allowed under the rules I feel it falls under the "no other modification" portion of the rules. In classes where you have to work around a stock body the rules say what you can do in the way of modifications and anything not listed as an exception (such as wing belly pan etc) isn't allowed right? These are not spill plates by anyway of the definition, and the only way I could even begin to justify them as part of the spoiler would be to say they stiffen it structurally, but this could be done underneath and out of the air flow. So I cannot justify them being part of the spoiler.
-
Rule change summited :-P
Basically calling for additional plates along spoiler inside of now allowed end plates. following existing specs.
Also stating care should be used to make sure bottom of plates [if used] does't interfere with parachute opening.
JL222
-
Good job.
-
Not much more can be said about fins. Should they be allowed? Sure, why not? If they're to be allowed then give 'em some spec limits. Hopefully the submitted wording is up to snuff.
Rule 1a applies to tech inspection just like it says. Body class stuff doesn't apply to tech. If a competitor has a beef with a tech inspector about something, the wording in the book is king. But again, following the rule which says we must follow the words in the book, this only applies to tech inspection.
It looks like a majority of the NASCAR rule book is procedural BS. What the NASCAR rule book has to do with dry lakes racing is beyond me. I'd imagine that writing rules for a racing organization where every single car is exactly the same is probably pretty easy versus writing general rules that are to be applied to any possible car imaginable. I'm also guessing that the NASCAR rule book was written by a fleet of lawyers. The scta rule book was written by a handful of racers.
It feels a lot less like you're asking genuine questions some times and a whole lot more like you want to point out that other people are doing things that you've been told are illegal and that's pretty lame IMO. Yes, the scta rules aren't as tight as you think they should be, we get it. You ask about running alt in this thread (http://www.landracing.com/forum/index.php/topic,13943.15.html) and you say the rule book is a problem. Mike says our rule book isn't perfect and that none others are and that ours is always a work in progress to make it better to which you say that you're not complaining and just trying to learn. And now here we are again... Some old story from the xxo guys. You're just here to learn but not without taking every opportunity to point out how bad the rule book is. There's so much complaining seething out of your questions that its hard to tell what you're actually trying to do. Whatever... That's your MO. Maybe I'm the only one who notices.
Btw i was the one who submitted the re-wording of the lug nuts rule after the complaining you did last year. You're welcome.
-
They don't add any aero advantage do they? Sorta like roof rails, just makes a car safer and more stable.
-
Not much more can be said about fins. Should they be allowed? Sure, why not? If they're to be allowed then give 'em some spec limits. Hopefully the submitted wording is up to snuff.
Rule 1a applies to tech inspection just like it says. Body class stuff doesn't apply to tech. If a competitor has a beef with a tech inspector about something, the wording in the book is king. But again, following the rule which says we must follow the words in the book, this only applies to tech inspection.
It looks like a majority of the NASCAR rule book is procedural BS. What the NASCAR rule book has to do with dry lakes racing is beyond me. I'd imagine that writing rules for a racing organization where every single car is exactly the same is probably pretty easy versus writing general rules that are to be applied to any possible car imaginable. I'm also guessing that the NASCAR rule book was written by a fleet of lawyers. The scta rule book was written by a handful of racers.
It feels a lot less like you're asking genuine questions some times and a whole lot more like you want to point out that other people are doing things that you've been told are illegal and that's pretty lame IMO. Yes, the scta rules aren't as tight as you think they should be, we get it. You ask about running alt in this thread (http://www.landracing.com/forum/index.php/topic,13943.15.html) and you say the rule book is a problem. Mike says our rule book isn't perfect and that none others are and that ours is always a work in progress to make it better to which you say that you're not complaining and just trying to learn. And now here we are again... Some old story from the xxo guys. You're just here to learn but not without taking every opportunity to point out how bad the rule book is. There's so much complaining seething out of your questions that its hard to tell what you're actually trying to do. Whatever... That's your MO. Maybe I'm the only one who notices.
Btw i was the one who submitted the re-wording of the lug nuts rule after the complaining you did last year. You're welcome.
When did we say the rule book was bad?
The re-wording of the lug nuts was because the rule book was way to vague. Now it is clear as day, with just two words added. Now there is no more confusion. That's what the original thread starter of this thread is trying to achieve also. Just to make it to where it is clear as day.
As to your statement:
It feels a lot less like you're asking genuine questions some times and a whole lot more like you want to point out that other people are doing things that you've been told are illegal and that's pretty lame IMO.
What we ask is the legality of things as we would want to do the same sort of things but then the rule book says you cant, or it doesn't say you can and therefore we come on here to get others opinions. We research what others have been doing (your dads advice on how to go about things is to look at what other cars have and have done to get ideas) and then we go from there.
Our MO is to learn, race fast and safely all at the same time, and then try and get a record in the mean time. That's it. Whatever you perceive beyond that is simply that, what you perceive. Sorry you feel this way.
-
Rule change summited :-P
Basically calling for additional plates along spoiler inside of now allowed end plates. following existing specs.
Also stating care should be used to make sure bottom of plates [if used] does't interfere with parachute opening.
JL222
Hey...Dan did this pass. If so, would like to get going on them :cheers: I hope :-D
JL222
-
Yes it passed John. Get to it..... :cheers:
-
Yes it passed John. Get to it..... :cheers:
ALL RIGHT :-D :cheers:
JL222
-
This blown fuel competition utility has run over 210 MPH down here at Lake Gairdner and has a lot more in it for next year.
To quote the owner/driver Michael Brixton:
"A couple of pics of my ute showing what I have done re my extra spill plates added but how I have also added a pressure plate flap so it becomes a multipurpose re safety .
Basically the 2 taller inner spill plates become the pressure flap side plate guides if deployed in a spin and the 2 smaller inner spill plates become the pressure flap stop plates so what we have tried to do is build 2 safety features into the one design 1) to help the car stay straight at high speed and 2) the pressure flap so the Ute doesn’t turn into an aeroplane in a spin."
(http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i2/Quickhemi/photo1.jpg) (http://s68.photobucket.com/user/Quickhemi/media/photo1.jpg.html)
(http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i2/Quickhemi/photo2.jpg) (http://s68.photobucket.com/user/Quickhemi/media/photo2.jpg.html)
This pic shows the spill plates and also you can see the pressure flap plate that runs between the 2 taller inner side plates and you can also see the 2 inner smaller spill stop plates.
(http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i2/Quickhemi/photo3.jpg) (http://s68.photobucket.com/user/Quickhemi/media/photo3.jpg.html)
-
That's gotta be the world's fastest "Ranchero". Wonder what The Mayor of Wells' ran in the early 70s?
-
363...that's pretty close to what we plan. But will probably go full size in middle.
WIDE TIRES :-D
JL222 :cheers: