Landracing Forum
Bonneville Salt Flats Discussion => Bonneville General Chat => Topic started by: Malcolm UK on February 01, 2016, 01:10:00 PM
-
Whilst the phrase 'Ultimate' has been used by the new World Land Speed Record Association in describing who they are trying to attract, the organisation has listed four classes fo the quickest wheeldriven speed contenders who do not want to follow the FIA rules - or indeed the SCTA/BNI rules.
Abstract from www.wlsra.com:
"Vehicle Classes
Records may be certified based on the following categories:
Thrust powered, multiple engine, 4 or more wheels.
Thrust powered, single engine, 4 or more wheels.
Thrust powered, multiple engine, 3 or fewer wheels.
Thrust powered, single engine, 3 or fewer wheels.
Wheel driven, multiple engine, 4 or more wheels.
Wheel driven, single engine, 4 or more wheels.
Wheel driven, multiple engine, 3 or fewer wheels.
Wheel driven, single engine, 3 or fewer wheels.
Hovercraft.
Unlimited watercraft."
Apart from NAE, Aussie Invader and Carbinite, I do not know which US or overseas teams are going to join the WLSRA.
-
Good luck to them. Make the events enjoyable and in interested.
-
I was led to believe that one reason for a new organization for the absolute land speed record
is to permit more elapsed time between runs in opposite directions. I have a comment and a
question about this particular point.
Surely it will make it easier to do, allowing more time for deceleration, turnaround, re-fueling, etc.
But can one legitimately compare a "modern" record against an earlier one, if the "modern" rules
make it easier to do the deed?
(Makes me wonder about baseball parks that have different distances from home plate to the
outfield fence . . . maybe there's some inequality here.)
Generally, I do think more time should be allowed (in theory, the quick turnaround is to compensate
for wind). But not a lot more time. Maybe 2 hours, instead of 1 would be appropriate. And yes,
I realize that not all land speed racing organizations require just one hour in all circumstances.
Perhaps the elapsed time "between opposite-direction runs" could start when the vehicle stops
rolling at the end of the first of the two runs, and the measured elapsed time could stop when the
vehicle starts moving on the return run. I think this would make sense. Currently, I think the clock
starts running while the vehicle is in the traps (perhaps at the end of the measured mile).
-
From section 2.6 of the WLSRA timing protocol:
" The lengths of travel (D1 and D2) by which velocities (V1 and V2) are established, approaches but shall not exceed one mile. Since an exact mile is impossible to resolve between precise points in time, the closest points that encompass an exact mile shall be used for T1, T2, and T3, T4 respectively."
Shouldn't that be "shall not be less than"?
-
Tallguy, I think the FIA/FIM timing window (one hour "cars" and two hours "bikes") starts when the entry clock light is tripped -- and ends when the exit light clock senses the vehicle's passing through the end of the timed stretch.
I remember hearing the audio recording from Thrust SSC, on AM1610 during a shutdown of an event, and hearing the timing official report that "I'm sorry, but you exited the timed stretch just 37 (or whatever) seconds after the one hour window ended."
Well, that's certainly not a direct quote but does carry the meaning of what I heard.
-
That is correct, it starts when you enter the timed mile on the down run & stops when you exit the same timed mile on the return run. In the 90's we actually missed the one hour window by six seconds on a return run with good MPH.
Sid.
-
It never made sense, to me, that bikes got two hours and cars one hour. And I am a bike guy.
-
Thanks, Sid. Yeah -- on the Thrust tape you can hear the cheering folks in the background - suddenly go quiet when they heard the announcement that they'd missed by just a tiny bit of time.
-
I guess the FIM and the FIA are two separate bodies.
And then there's Major League Baseball with two leagues. And the Designated Hitter rule for one league and not the other. Try justifying that one to someone.
-
I did a quick read of the Rules. There is no map or lay out of the Track, such as T1 to T2 and T3 To T4. And I don't see where the rules say you have to run the same physical timed Mile. So the Question is can you run Both Time miles one after the other in one run?
-
I see three issues with the proposed timing protocols that would raise questions of fairness comparing records to historical performances.
1. rescinding the one hour rule.
2. not requiring 2 directional runs over the same mile.
3. allowing the fastest measured (by GPS) mile in the run, rather than a pre-designated two points (formerly called "the lights"), to count as the record.
On the first point, someone suggested that this rule was to ensure that one couldn't wait for a tailwind in both directions. I think there's more to it than that. The record is for automobiles, and it's supposed to advance the art. A reliable car ought to be able to go back and do it again. If the cars can't do it, the blame is not on the rules but on the cars.
On the second point, the SCTA doesn't require it, and that's a strong argument that two way runs should go away. The Bonneville Salt Flats may never again have a 12 mile usable track. We want to keep running, at least wheel-driven cars, on the flats. Arguably, trying to run a FIA style course there has been fatal. Good idea.
Third point. I think the entrant or organizer should have to pre-designate the course, and make P1 and P2 the closest points before and after the designated mile. I don't see a compelling safety reason to soften the traditional requirement.
YMMV
-
Tortoise said: "...A reliable car ought to be able to go back and do it again. If the cars can't do it, the blame is not on the rules but on the cars. "
But an hour for not just the runs but servicing at the end of run one?
At a Shootout a few years ago it was poetry in motion to watch the Burkland crew working on the car at the end of the down run. Tom followed the carefully drawn lines in the salt to drive the car right up onto a turntable as he came to a stop. Crew members then attacked the car - body panels, plugs, fuel, etc - walking backwards or forwards to move with the car as it turned. Talk about a ballet!!!
But with all of the stuff that absolutely HAD to be done between runs and still have time for unexpected issues during that turnaround -- the turntable event was one way to try to get everything done in the allotted time.
And, to add to the relaxed atmosphere, was one of the Rice Brothers calling out the remaining time before the end of the window.
Nah, no pressure at all. :roll: :cheers:
-
SCTA eliminated the return run from coming back towards Wendover after Nolan's crash for safety reasons but the point to be recognized here is that SCTA is not claiming World Records so it's not necessary to run the same rules as FIA.
Both SCTA & USFRA changed to the same new rules to stay aligned with each other.
Sid.
-
SCTA eliminated the return run from coming back towards Wendover after Nolan's crash for safety reasons but the point to be recognized here is that SCTA is not claiming World Records so it's not necessary to run the same rules as FIA.
Both SCTA & USFRA changed to the same new rules to stay aligned with each other.
Sid.
The safety reasons don't go away when you run for a world record; in fact the higher speeds make them more urgent. If the course is level, with no significant wind, there's no speed advantage for making both runs in the same directjon.
-
If you are running as a lone vehicle, running both directions isn't the major issue. Try taking all the cars at Speedweek turning them around to run the other direction. It would be a nightmare logistically.
Having more time between runs to inspect and secure their safety of the vehicle is paramount. Driving a wheel driven car at +500mph is difficult, just ask anyone who has done it.
Giving time to allow a team to go over the car with a fine tooth comb to ensure their safety is reason enough to make the change. If you search the historical record (*cough* Malcom UK could share i am sure *cough*) on speed attempts on water you will find at least one driver that went without refueling on his return run to save time. It was a poor decision based on the outcome.
With all that is going on in trying to make a high speed pass the last thing we should be doing is putting an undue burden on competitors that may cause them to shirk safety in favor of a record attempt.
In the historical times the turnaround may have been to prevent someone from swapping engines as reliability wasn't what it is today. I would see little problem in getting at least 4 hard passes out of a good motor. Needing to swap because of reliability isn't an issue. Rules may need to be in place to dictate motor changes aren't allowed between record passes if that is indeed a concern. Using a one hour rule to prevent it really doesn't justify the need for the one hour time.
-
Dude!! I don't know where you're getting your information from, nobody has gone 500 in a wheel driven vehicle.
Sid.
-
Sid...come on.... that is called a tongue in cheek statement...that is the whole point lol. It is so hard nobody has done it.
This is new territory and I believe what is driving the desire for changes.
-
But an hour for not just the runs but servicing at the end of run one? . . . Nah, no pressure at all. :roll: :cheers:
It's supposed to be hard.
-
Has nothing to do with being hard. You try engineerig and building a vehicle capable of those speeds, that is hard.
The problem is the danger in rushing to beat a one hour clock and shorting yourself on safety.
What you are dismissing jovially as hard is really better described as deadly.
-
I don't want to kill anybody.
-
I don't want to kill anybody.
You haven't spent enough time around me then!
-
I think it is reasonable to declare the maximum time between runs should be dictated by official sunup to official sundown. If you are going for an unlimited, absolute record, who cares if you change engines, tires, or whatever! If when you are trying to run over 500 with a wheel driven car or even faster with a thrust powered vehicle, we're not going to run when there is any significant wind, whether it be any point of the compass. If needed, modern technology can adjust the wind advantage or disadvantage for timing the run if that is the big concern. As for running two way, why? As Rosco pointed out, if you take 7 miles to run up and 3 miles to stop on your 10 mile course (which is about all we can find on dry lakes) then to run over the same measured mile, he only has 3 miles to accelerate. So what's the point? Al missed several opportunities in past years because of the FIA requirement for two way runs over the same mile. The answer is for the absolute speed records is to utilize GNSS timing and maybe lights as a backup if so desired. I for one have made a pass at a 100 ft wide trap at 500 from 5 miles back and it isn't easy to hit that target gate. With GNSS, there is no limit on the width of the timing traps and it is more accurate than lights anyway. I got into the 2 club with an average of 276 and some change but keeping that lakester in line was tough enough when you hit that wind drift coming off the mountains at the 4 mile. Try it with a beast making over about 50,000 hp with only 2 degrees of steering. I vote for GNSS technology in the future for the unlimiteds. And that's my 2 cents!
-
Giving time to allow a team to go over the car with a fine tooth comb to ensure their safety is reason enough to make the change. If you search the historical record (*cough* Malcom UK could share i am sure *cough*) on speed attempts on water you will find at least one driver that went without refueling on his return run to save time. It was a poor decision based on the outcome.
With all that is going on in trying to make a high speed pass the last thing we should be doing is putting an undue burden on competitors that may cause them to shirk safety in favor of a record attempt.
As I was named, let me tell you all that the Coroner investigating the death of Donald Malcolm Campbell received expert evidence. That evidence did not give the reason for the crash of K7 as being 'too little fuel'. The practice of making two runs with the boat on a single fuel load had been made on Christmas Day (and two days following) and when the boat was in a different configuration in the fifties many times back to back runs were made.
If wheeldriven record breakers do not want to make an attempt a true "team effort" - I loved your description of the Burklands, Slim - then why not apply to the FIA, through one of your countries affiliated associations, for there to be a second hour for safety checks on wheeldriven vehicles? [I am in contact with Rob on fb].
Having watched UK and Australian drag racing teams service a top fueller between rounds, even those record breakers using Nitromethane fuel should be able to safely achieve servicing checks and an oil change in two hours.
-
Sid...come on.... that is called a tongue in cheek statement...that is the whole point lol. It is so hard nobody has done it.
This is new territory and I believe what is driving the desire for changes.
Nice save!
-
Just for my little add to the mix. Chick and I were at the start line when Nolan went through the 'O' start line at speed the first time. It was exciting and luckily that year the cars were held in pre-stage. But to see a car go by, closely, at 250 or so was something I will not forget.
-
I think it is reasonable to declare the maximum time between runs should be dictated by official sunup to official sundown. If you are going for an unlimited, absolute record, who cares if you change engines, tires, or whatever! If when you are trying to run over 500 with a wheel driven car or even faster with a thrust powered vehicle, we're not going to run when there is any significant wind, whether it be any point of the compass. If needed, modern technology can adjust the wind advantage or disadvantage for timing the run if that is the big concern. As for running two way, why? As Rosco pointed out, if you take 7 miles to run up and 3 miles to stop on your 10 mile course (which is about all we can find on dry lakes) then to run over the same measured mile, he only has 3 miles to accelerate. So what's the point? Al missed several opportunities in past years because of the FIA requirement for two way runs over the same mile. The answer is for the absolute speed records is to utilize GNSS timing and maybe lights as a backup if so desired. I for one have made a pass at a 100 ft wide trap at 500 from 5 miles back and it isn't easy to hit that target gate. With GNSS, there is no limit on the width of the timing traps and it is more accurate than lights anyway. I got into the 2 club with an average of 276 and some change but keeping that lakester in line was tough enough when you hit that wind drift coming off the mountains at the 4 mile. Try it with a beast making over about 50,000 hp with only 2 degrees of steering. I vote for GNSS technology in the future for the unlimiteds. And that's my 2 cents!
When you say Al missed several opportunities, that's true, we did because of breakages or time out's but that's how the previous record was set that we were trying to break. How is breaking a previous world record going to hold any credibility if it's not run under the same parameters? This is the same reason the Budwiser Rocket effort became a "whatever" run.
I'm all for a governing body other than FIA but you can't change the rules half way through the game.
It's like I just broke you lap record dude..... no you didn't, yesterday they took out the chicane on the back straight away, it's not the same course any more.
My liner is built around being able to get the job done within the existing rules so that any record I click off will be credible within SCTA, USFRA, DLRA or FIA & nobody in the heavy hitting streamliner world has less money than me & no sponsor's.
Sid.
-
From the WLSRA protocol:
". . .the most attractive aspect with a direct impact on safety – the ability to capture the fastest mile within the entire length of each run. "
So you set off this firecracker, and it runs in any direction, and the start and finish lines are defined after the fact. This looks bogus.
How would it be unsafe to define two parallel lines a mile apart, and use the last data point before and the first after for your average speed through the mile? This gives you a virtual trap, with a finish line you can put wherever you think is safe -- before the run.
-
So let's see if I understand this as far as the "measured mile" being a moving target and adding an aspect of safety.
I have a car that can go faster than anything ever built before. I have a course with 10 miles of good, hard, flat ground. At one end of the course is another 20 miles of flat, but soft or not so good ground. At the other end of the 10 miles is a sheer rock face with a public road running along the bottom. I can find no other practical course at this time. Also, my car can "safely" run up to top speed in 7 miles, and stop in 2 as long as nothing goes wrong.
With the current requirements there is no way that I can possibly make a safe return run, because I have no emergency run out area. I have all the room in the world to run in the direction away from the cliff, however. I can make one down run, tow back to the start line, and make another run to backup and verify the performance, but it won't count under FIA or FIM rules because they require runs in opposite directions over the same measured mile.
This means that given the performance parameters of my theoretical car (7 miles to accelerate, one mile trap, and then sufficient emergency run out room to stop) I would need to find a course that is at least 15 miles of good surface. The new organization's rules make it possible to run on a 10 mile course vs 15. The extra time allows for a tow back to the start line and safe preparation for the backup run. Seems like positive things to me. :cheers:
I know some folks are going to have hurt feelings because they feel like their toes are getting stepped on and their kingdoms are being challenged, but really, that's a constant progression of things in the world. Fight the status quo, change it, or go around it and let it catch up. The sun comes up tomorrow and we try again. :-D
-
When it all boils down to it, my opinion is only that, an opinion. When it comes to wanting to run against an existing world record, an SCTA record or what ever record, I will only run where that record will be recognized & under the approved rules. Otherwise I will only be making shakedown runs & maybe getting a few Kudos.
Sid.
-
Giving time to allow a team to go over the car with a fine tooth comb to ensure their safety is reason enough to make the change. If you search the historical record (*cough* Malcom UK could share i am sure *cough*) on speed attempts on water you will find at least one driver that went without refueling on his return run to save time. It was a poor decision based on the outcome.
With all that is going on in trying to make a high speed pass the last thing we should be doing is putting an undue burden on competitors that may cause them to shirk safety in favor of a record attempt.
As I was named, let me tell you all that the Coroner investigating the death of Donald Malcolm Campbell received expert evidence. That evidence did not give the reason for the crash of K7 as being 'too little fuel'. The practice of making two runs with the boat on a single fuel load had been made on Christmas Day (and two days following) and when the boat was in a different configuration in the fifties many times back to back runs were made.
If wheeldriven record breakers do not want to make an attempt a true "team effort" - I loved your description of the Burklands, Slim - then why not apply to the FIA, through one of your countries affiliated associations, for there to be a second hour for safety checks on wheeldriven vehicles? [I am in contact with Rob on fb].
Having watched UK and Australian drag racing teams service a top fueller between rounds, even those record breakers using Nitromethane fuel should be able to safely achieve servicing checks and an oil change in two hours.
I knew you would have the detail!
I was thinking in what I had seen on it the boat was light from failing to refuel and that was attributed as the cause of the accident. Is it possible it was Cobb that had that issue or are the documentary sciences (<-pronounced "History Channel Editors") just inaccurate in their reporting? :wink:
-
So let's see if I understand this as far as the "measured mile" being a moving target and adding an aspect of safety.
I have a car that can go faster than anything ever built before. I have a course with 10 miles of good, hard, flat ground. At one end of the course is another 20 miles of flat, but soft or not so good ground. At the other end of the 10 miles is a sheer rock face with a public road running along the bottom. I can find no other practical course at this time. Also, my car can "safely" run up to top speed in 7 miles, and stop in 2 as long as nothing goes wrong.
With the current requirements there is no way that I can possibly make a safe return run, because I have no emergency run out area. I have all the room in the world to run in the direction away from the cliff, however. I can make one down run, tow back to the start line, and make another run to backup and verify the performance, but it won't count under FIA or FIM rules because they require runs in opposite directions over the same measured mile.
This means that given the performance parameters of my theoretical car (7 miles to accelerate, one mile trap, and then sufficient emergency run out room to stop) I would need to find a course that is at least 15 miles of good surface. The new organization's rules make it possible to run on a 10 mile course vs 15. The extra time allows for a tow back to the start line and safe preparation for the backup run. Seems like positive things to me. :cheers:
I know some folks are going to have hurt feelings because they feel like their toes are getting stepped on and their kingdoms are being challenged, but really, that's a constant progression of things in the world. Fight the status quo, change it, or go around it and let it catch up. The sun comes up tomorrow and we try again. :-D
You're mixing together two questions. New rules could allow two runs over the same course in the same direction, but still have a pre-defined virtual speed trap, rather than just calling the fastest mile the trap.
-
I suspect that the worlds fastest crash by Arfons back in the day, which was caused by a burned bearing that siezed, might not have happened if he didn't have to worry about the one hour time constraint. I really don't know if it happened on the down run or the return run but if it was on the return run, shame on the rule! I cannot speak for the other cars but the rotation of the wheels at 800 MPH will be 12,500 on the nose wheel, 15,000 on the mid wheels and 8000 on the rear wheels. Inspection of the wheels and the bearings will be absolutley necessary after each run. Reloading the chutes and arming the charges, refilling the brake cooling system, refueling the car, repositioning the course marshalls, repositioning the fire and parametic folks, uploading the run data to the cloud and analyzing the results then changing my shorts just might take more than one hour. I vote for sunup to sundown for the two timed runs.
-
"This means that given the performance parameters of my theoretical car (7 miles to accelerate, one mile trap, and then sufficient emergency run out room to stop) I would need to find a course that is at least 15 miles of good surface."
. . . or build the car so that it can reach maximum speed in, say, 4 miles.
-
You've built a vehicle that you say you can't run within the existing rules that everybody else has run on, so now you want to change the rules to suit your situation! Now you wonder why you're not getting much love out here!
Sid.
-
How long a track did Don Vesco have when he went 458?
-
"This means that given the performance parameters of my theoretical car (7 miles to accelerate, one mile trap, and then sufficient emergency run out room to stop) I would need to find a course that is at least 15 miles of good surface."
. . . or build the car so that it can reach maximum speed in, say, 4 miles.
In the scenario that I described it still couldn't be run safely, due to the road and cliff at one end of the course eliminating any possible safe run out area in the event of a failure of the stopping systems.
-
You've built a vehicle that you say you can't run within the existing rules that everybody else has run on, so now you want to change the rules to suit your situation! Now you wonder why you're not getting much love out here!
Sid.
That smells of sour grapes. He wants to do something different, and do something by his own standards. I don't see why that's such a big problem. You're one of those people that get angry when someone colors outside the lines huh?
-
I sort of like the idea of having a finite finish line even when using GPS measuring equipment. That way the two run average is measured on the same mile. This eliminates any performance advantage over old timing style. Records set in this fashion will carry more weight just because it is closer to the conventional way. When you think about it, when we set up our courses, we will calculate a maximum distance we need for shut down and install some course markers for a finish line anyhow. The GPS numbers for that spot can be recorded before any runs happen. The mile could just be measured from that spot back via GPS. We will almost always charge hard to the finish line anyhow so it is sort of a mute point. As long as course surveys within the minimum specified elevation drop, there will not be much if any performance advantage from the convention timing equipment.
-
You've built a vehicle that you say you can't run within the existing rules that everybody else has run on, so now you want to change the rules to suit your situation! Now you wonder why you're not getting much love out here!
Sid.
That smells of sour grapes. He wants to do something different, and do something by his own standards. I don't see why that's such a big problem. You're one of those people that get angry when someone colors outside the lines huh?
How the hell does that smell of sour grapes??
Hypothetically you hold an FIA world record that you set within the internationally accepted rules including the one hour window. Now somebody has claimed to have broken your world record but they did one run at 7am in the morning, spent all day working on their machine & made another run at 7pm & you think this is ok?
It's called an even playing field but you are suggesting that moving the goal line 25ft closer to the center for your team because they can't run that far but they want to win the superbowl, is "no big problem".
Sid.
-
Well then, we should play the superbowl in the same uniforms as they did in the very first one. All the FIA timing should be done with stop watches. All aviation records should only be done with propeller driven aircraft. In order to level the playing field, all vehicles will be built and designed on a maximum investment of $1000. Drivers wear white coveralls and a fibre helmet with a leather chin strap. Scrap those onboard data gathering devices (race paks) and ?????
-
Well then, we should play the superbowl in the same uniforms as they did in the very first one. All the FIA timing should be done with stop watches. All aviation records should only be done with propeller driven aircraft. In order to level the playing field, all vehicles will be built and designed on a maximum investment of $1000. Drivers wear white coveralls and a fibre helmet with a leather chin strap. Scrap those onboard data gathering devices (race paks) and ?????
What do you think the SFI rating is on that jacket? lol
(http://assets.blog.hemmings.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/arfons_resized.jpg)
-
You've built a vehicle that you say you can't run within the existing rules that everybody else has run on, so now you want to change the rules to suit your situation! Now you wonder why you're not getting much love out here!
Sid.
That smells of sour grapes. He wants to do something different, and do something by his own standards. I don't see why that's such a big problem. You're one of those people that get angry when someone colors outside the lines huh?
How the hell does that smell of sour grapes??
Hypothetically you hold an FIA world record that you set within the internationally accepted rules including the one hour window. Now somebody has claimed to have broken your world record but they did one run at 7am in the morning, spent all day working on their machine & made another run at 7pm & you think this is ok?
It's called an even playing field but you are suggesting that moving the goal line 25ft closer to the center for your team because they can't run that far but they want to win the superbowl, is "no big problem".
Sid.
So Craig Breedlove is just a chump then? Since he asked the FIA to change their rules just for him.
-
Well then, we should play the superbowl in the same uniforms as they did in the very first one. All the FIA timing should be done with stop watches. All aviation records should only be done with propeller driven aircraft. In order to level the playing field, all vehicles will be built and designed on a maximum investment of $1000. Drivers wear white coveralls and a fibre helmet with a leather chin strap. Scrap those onboard data gathering devices (race paks) and ?????
What do you think the SFI rating is on that jacket? lol
(http://assets.blog.hemmings.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/arfons_resized.jpg)
that's SFI 0-5H17
-
Maybe it's time to mention that before 1928 the turn around time was 1/2 hour...
That being said, I find it ridiculous that the motorcycles get a 2 hour turn around & the cars only get 1 hour.
-
I find it ridiculous that the motorcycles get a 2 hour turn around & the cars only get 1 hour.
The difference is hard to explain and probably could not be justified if we were starting in the 21st Century.
However it is easy to understand when there are two separate governing bodies involved. The FIM have always protected two and three wheeled sport (1909) and the FIA has (eventually) been there for the four or more wheeled folk (1898, but now 1935 rules).
What is interesting is that a number of reasons are now being put forward that safety checks must over run the hour. Shouldn't builders look at ways of continuously monitoring parts or systems during vehicle operation, so that the data is available in 'real time'?
-
However it is easy to understand when there are two separate governing bodies involved. The FIM have always protected two and three wheeled sport (1909) and the FIA has (eventually) been there for the four or more wheeled folk (1898, but now 1935 rules).
Probably not wise for me to try to correct Malcolm, but 'Pedant' is my middle name ...
My notes suggest that the earliest records (1898-1904) were under the authority of the ACF. And yes 'F' is France. The AIACR was formed in 1904 (and included the USA) but didn't define rules for land speed records until 1908. The FIA did not come into existence until October 1946, but I'm not sure whether this was regarded as a new organisation or simply the AIACR renamed.
As for the FIM it was originally the FICM (also formed in 1904) and became the FIM in 1949. I am less sure of the details of its history though.
-
... He wants to do something different, and do something by his own standards. I don't see why that's such a big problem.
Nothing wrong with doing something different and setting your own standards.
But you have to decide whether you want to be remembered as Stan Barrett or Andy Green.
-
So Craig Breedlove is just a chump then? Since he asked the FIA to change their rules just for him.
Isn't the point that the FIA didn't recognise Breedlove's three-wheeled SoA records so he then turned to the FIM?
And the first thrust-powered record recognised by the FIA was Art Arfons at the end of 1964?
-
However it is easy to understand when there are two separate governing bodies involved. The FIM have always protected two and three wheeled sport (1909) and the FIA has (eventually) been there for the four or more wheeled folk (1898, but now 1935 rules).
Probably not wise for me to try to correct Malcolm, but 'Pedant' is my middle name ...
My notes suggest that the earliest records (1898-1904) were under the authority of the ACF. And yes 'F' is France. The AIACR was formed in 1904 (and included the USA) but didn't define rules for land speed records until 1908. The FIA did not come into existence until October 1946, but I'm not sure whether this was regarded as a new organisation or simply the AIACR renamed.
As for the FIM it was originally the FICM (also formed in 1904) and became the FIM in 1949. I am less sure of the details of its history though.
in facts, a lot of this comments are right....but I like to clarify some notes for better understanding...the whole history behind this association can really confuse....
first...four wheeler
the very first World Speed Record was set by a French motorist close to Paris....someone has to take care...the closest "organization" was the French automotive "club"...
by the way...first records was slower than the bicycle records....means human power.....to this time
there was not too much rules....for this first record attempt the distance was set to one kilometer...the racer was a electric vehicle...at high speed the battery didn't last much longer...there was also in the early days a mile to set a record....but the speed was so slow...that the record breakers didn't accelerate anymore...worse...they slowed down...so it didn't make sense to go over a longer distance....different in the US...kilometer...what's that....they knew miles....and the famous how much miles the minute became there very popular...
the first challenger was coming from Belgian....and very quick there was more "foreigner" going for the record....and this French "regulator" wasn't always fair....so in 1904 they changed the first time the name of the organization to get the whole automotive organization an international touch....also the US was included....
But there was still no proper rules....this organization done it very simple...due to missing rules the just said, yes we certify this record or they said no....simple....
sometimes the explanation why they didn't accept could be understand - like the attempt from one of the owners of Rolls Royce company....this fellow run downhill's...
but other nobody could understand....in 1906, Ormond Beach, Daytona....a steam car set some records...but they only accept the slower speed..... :roll: :roll: :roll:
so finally around 1908 they start to write the first proper rules....with the first major change in 1911...the two way records became the base to set a record...the last record under the old rule was set 1909 at Brooklands....at the same place...in 1914 the first two way record was set....this record was slower than the 1909 one way record...but it was now the bench mark...and it was the first record which run over the mile distance....
with this new rule in 1911 the discussion about the fastest began....reason....running in Europe the record attempts used the two way....in the US, here especially Daytona....the American Automobile Club still run one way....so a lot speed records....some of them faster than the official record was not certified from the still in Paris based organization....
in Europe the confusion wasn't better...in 1924 a record was only accept over the mile, albeit the kilo was faster... :roll: :roll: :roll:
when the tracks in Europe start to be too short for setting faster speeds, it was Segrave using the 1000 hp Sunbeam, who runs at Daytona Beach for the outright record...and the first two way record in the states....also the first over 200 mph....
not to much changes in the rule book....one was the turn around time....first 1/2 hour...later 1 hour....that the racer didn't need anymore a reverse gear.....and one percent rule...
after the war the organization was still the same and based in Paris....but they gave himself a more clear name....FIA....
to the two and three wheeler....the "motorcycle" organization was found later....the same year when the four wheeler changed their name for the first time...
but was not found to certify speed records...it was for the motorcycle races....the first world speed record was finally in the 20's announced....
after the WW II, when the AIACR became FIA, the FICM, that it matched, became FIM....but they was still two different organization, to today....
Both was still in Paris....but later they moved to a neutral country....Switzerland....a country with more or less no motorsport....
....and they was still (and always) rivals...
a good example for this was Craig Breedlove's 1963 record.....there was no category for this racer...not in the FIA nor in the FIM rule book....but the FIM accept this record...the first and last time a FIM racer was the fastest vehicle on earth.....
in 1964...the first jet car record accept by the FIA was Tom Green with the Wingfoot Express....when Craig set more records with the Three wheeler SoA the FIA accept this record, albeit this jet racer had only three wheels....FIA didn't like that FIM had the fastest on earth in his book....
With the jet engines in the record book....and the FIA understand that they can't compare apples with pears - means thrust power and wheel driven - they changed the rule book, not only in wheel driven and thrust power...they also changed the wheel driven....into N/A and Charged engines, also turbine and electric engine....in all the years before their was no
rule what kind of power unit they used....unblown, supercharged...doesn't matter...faster was faster.....combusting engine also got now displacement size, turbine and electric run under weight....they was not thinking that electric could run so quick...and that a turbine can became a very small power unit....
the outright record became the World Speed Record...the wheel driven was for a long time international records....
meanwhile, the 1 percent rule is history, also the wheel driven are again world speed records....
The FIM also done some changes.....the biggest was when they frozen the most of the records....their was so much confusion with the different kind of classes and configuration that they simple done a "cut"....some of the records was still the benchmark....other can't be broken anymore....because the category is now a new one with more or less different rules...so their are now records to the old and the new rules.....
hope this helps to get a better understanding for the "regulators" of the speed records
-
Thank you Thomas for the insight. :cheers:
-
So Craig Breedlove is just a chump then? Since he asked the FIA to change their rules just for him.
Isn't the point that the FIA didn't recognise Breedlove's three-wheeled SoA records so he then turned to the FIM?
And the first thrust-powered record recognised by the FIA was Art Arfons at the end of 1964?
But they gave in didn't they. Sometimes you have to force their hand to bring about positive progress. Having a fit just because someone wants the rules to change isn't anyway to think. Unless you're the sort that never colors outside the lines... I GOT A METHODIST COLORING BOOOOOOOK.
-
No they didn't give in. What are you talking about? Breedlove gave in and built a 4 wheel jet car to meet FIA regulations. I thought everyone knew that.
-
:dhorse:
-
Ill second that :dhorse:
-
Apparently not everyone! :-P
Sid.
-
However it is easy to understand when there are two separate governing bodies involved. The FIM have always protected two and three wheeled sport (1909) and the FIA has (eventually) been there for the four or more wheeled folk (1898, but now 1935 rules).
Probably not wise for me to try to correct Malcolm, but 'Pedant' is my middle name ...
Just teaches me to make sure my sentences are structured correctly - the position of the eventually was incorrect to tell readers that the FIA grew from other names.
-
So Craig Breedlove is just a chump then? Since he asked the FIA to change their rules just for him.
Isn't the point that the FIA didn't recognise Breedlove's three-wheeled SoA records so he then turned to the FIM?
And the first thrust-powered record recognised by the FIA was Art Arfons at the end of 1964?
Do not change history - Tom Green in Walt Arfons' car got to be the first, even if it was only for 3 days.
-
Do not change history - Tom Green in Walt Arfons' car got to be the first, even if it was only for 3 days.
Sorry, if my English was so bad to read....or my note was too long that it makes tired before coming to the line where I pointed this out, that the late Tom Green in Walt's car set the first FIA certified thrust record....
Tom was not only the driver, he also had designed and built the car...a very nice chap....before his record he hadn't driven faster than 100 mph on the road....
-
No they didn't give in. What are you talking about? Breedlove gave in and built a 4 wheel jet car to meet FIA regulations. I thought everyone knew that.
Did he? I thought they eventually accepted the 3 wheeled car. I thought the new car was built because he put the other one in a lake.
-
FIM, the motorcycle people accepted the 3 wheel jet. FIA never did. But, yes. Putting the 3 wheeler in the lake had a lot to do with building a new car.
-
So Craig Breedlove is just a chump then? Since he asked the FIA to change their rules just for him.
Isn't the point that the FIA didn't recognise Breedlove's three-wheeled SoA records so he then turned to the FIM?
And the first thrust-powered record recognised by the FIA was Art Arfons at the end of 1964?
Do not change history - Tom Green in Walt Arfons' car got to be the first, even if it was only for 3 days.
Trying to understand history rather than change it. :-)
From what I have read it appears that the FIA did not recognise/ratify several of the jet powered records in 1963-4 including Tom Green and Art Arfons at the beginning of October 1964. It was only Art Arfons 27 October speed that was recognised. But this is a very confusing period of FIA history so I could easily be wrong.
-
However it is easy to understand when there are two separate governing bodies involved. The FIM have always protected two and three wheeled sport (1909) and the FIA has (eventually) been there for the four or more wheeled folk (1898, but now 1935 rules).
Probably not wise for me to try to correct Malcolm, but 'Pedant' is my middle name ...
My notes suggest that the earliest records (1898-1904) were under the authority of the ACF. And yes 'F' is France. The AIACR was formed in 1904 (and included the USA) but didn't define rules for land speed records until 1908. The FIA did not come into existence until October 1946, but I'm not sure whether this was regarded as a new organisation or simply the AIACR renamed.
As for the FIM it was originally the FICM (also formed in 1904) and became the FIM in 1949. I am less sure of the details of its history though.
...
The FIM also done some changes.....the biggest was when they frozen the most of the records....their was so much confusion with the different kind of classes and configuration that they simple done a "cut"....some of the records was still the benchmark....other can't be broken anymore....because the category is now a new one with more or less different rules...so their are now records to the old and the new rules.....
hope this helps to get a better understanding for the "regulators" of the speed records
Thomas, is there a list of the records frozen in 1979 available anywhere?
-
Here some answers:
1. thrust power records....as I wrote before in my long note about FIA and FIM....in 1963 the FIM accept the SoA Three Wheeler record, albeit there was no class or category....
the rival between FIM and FIA created the strange situation.....Tom Green's record was official certified by the FIA as a record (I visit Tom at his home end of the 90's in Schaumburg/Il), also the first record from Art Arfons three days later......more strange was than, when the FIA also certified the SoA Three Wheeler record from Craig Breedlove...
this didn't make sense....where is the fourth wheel....the steering wheel....the FIA turned everything upside down just to have the fastest vehicle on earth in his organization....
this to the rival between this two...
2. FIM, last year the FIM created a new website....before I tried to find information in the old one....there was for a while a list which showed the old (frozen) and the new records....
now the old website is gone....I got the rights from the FIM to go through the whole (new) website, but I couldn't find nothing - honestly....this website is extremely confusing if you try to find something...just to find a rule it can became a disaster....no idea what they thinking.....
Anyway....somewhere in my archive I kept one of this "mixed" list....also I saw two years ago at the Retro Classics at an antic book dealer a copy of an FIM record list book which was from the time when they done the change...unfortunately the prize he asked for was out of my range I could afford......I'm not Bill Gates...