Landracing Forum
El Mirage => El Mirage General Chat => Topic started by: Dean Los Angeles on October 22, 2006, 07:13:32 PM
-
It was in the 90's in Southern California this weekend. I left Simi Valley at 5:30 a.m. and it was 74 degrees. 30 minutes later in Santa Clarita it was 56 degrees. Palmdale 44. El Mirage at 7:00 a.m. 33 degrees. Gotta love the desert.
It was a perfect race day. There was no wind. It did make visibility pretty tough by 10:00.
Panoramic view of El Mirage. 8:00 a.m. just before the first run. Click on the image for the full view.
(http://pages.sbcglobal.net/dean4/_images/El%20Mirage.JPG)
PS: The guy in the shorts is freezing to death!
I LOVE the smell of nitro in the morning!!!!!!
(http://pages.sbcglobal.net/dean4/_images/S_DSCN1565.JPG)
Rick Yacoucci always looks good.
(http://pages.sbcglobal.net/dean4/_images/S_DSCN1595.JPG)
Let me see,
Costella & Yacoucci, Rick Yacoucci, I BFS, 235.516
Costella & Yacoucci, Rich Yacoucci, H BFS, 247.750
Costella & Yacoucci, Rich Yacoucci G BFS, 263.412
So you thumb through the record book and discover that F BGS is 211.180. You just need a few more cubes:
(http://pages.sbcglobal.net/dean4/_images/S_DSCN1566.JPG)
So you graft an engine on to the back! Looked like an air cooled 2 stroke driving a single wheel. Cool! 246 mph for the record.
I'll post the rest of the pictures in the gallery a little later.
-
I was on the phone with Bob Webb, SCTA timer @ a little after 2:00 pm and they were on wind hold @21 mph,Haven't heard any since then.
The weather report shows the wind decreased somewhat later in the day
-
Many spins, held for over an hour due to high winds. On restart all got 1 run.....J.D. I think there were less than 10 records
-
I pulled A.M. patrol today, yep it was a tad chilly at 35 degrees. But after the sun came up it was a great day! J.D.'s right, after the course went away we had about 5 spins. (not to throw politics in but the SCTA moved the track all the way back to the western edge of the lakebed but it still went away) So the track was moved. Then a wind delay but we got going about 2:00.
Here are a couple pictures when I got the chance to walk the pits.
-
OK trying again
-
Sorry, I'll try to load pictures tomorrow at work.
-
I had PM duty at station 5..... lots of gusting wind but not 2 bad, lots of spins. not many records. The course was pushed all the way back to Calloways to get good dirt and it still went away fast. some bonehead was doin donuts out yonder where they plan 2 set up the November course, I think Lee Kennedy went over and straightened him out. Don't know what kind of damage was done. Lee also got a chance 2 talk 2 a couple of dirt bikers that decided 2 cross the course about duty station 3 a suggestion was made on the CB when he was chasin them 2 just run them over and don't stop unless their corps flatten his tire. Don't think he did. was at duty station all day so i didn't get a chance to see people in the pits. Heard a conversation when i was helpin take down the motorcycle tech awning that yacoucci was protested, don't know the result.
later
kent
-
Kent, I don't know you or John Romero. Never even seen you before. But the last statement you made in your post kinda seems in poor taste to me, especially since you didn't post any specifics about what Rick was protested for or if it even held up. You said you don't like Romero spreading gossip and rumors so why do you see yourself fit to? Let whoever who is actually involved with whatever is going on there decide if it needs to be posted here.
-
Lemme guess -- maybe the postulated protest was about putting a spare engine on the back of the car. I got this from the photos, not from any other source, so I make my guess bassed on the information presented in this very subject thread. Not that I'd deny anyone the right to try that approach -- it shows great creativity, and I betcha dollars to donuts if it's true -- that Rick isn't too shocked about the situation.
-
I see on the SCTA web site the record is in red, which usually means it is certified.
-
There were a lot of interested onlookers, and discussions in the Tech Inspection staging lanes. The car was in the trailer and the extra engine, framework and drive tire were in the back of his truck. Had to be some great discussions during the inspection.
It seemed that the main point was if the added engine would actually aid the performance of the car. I have no idea how you would prove that one way or the other.
Very clever and innovative either way. You just have to love the creativity Rick showed! That's what makes LSR so much fun. Come see the odd and outlandish.
Tom
-
ajr
oooh thats a low blow... compairing me to romero is like ..... well.... it's a low blow man!!!!
Its not gossip or a rumor it is a fact. i am not involved and do not know the details or the results. therefor i only stated what i know happened at El Mirage yesterday and i wont tell ya anything i dont know for fact. So yes, someone didn't like the way Rick modified his car so they protested it. I looked for Rick early, about 9:30 AM before my PM duty to see his car. I was told i would get a good chuckle out of it but I couldnt find him so I didnt get to see the car first hand (the first pix i saw of it was on this post). I also looked for Jim Knapp after my duty but he already went home. Our Club presedent told me more details of the protest. Several people stopped by my duty station to shoot the breeze and mentioned the protest throughout the day. But without first hand conversation with either Rick of Jim i didnt give you second hand details. I spoke with Dan Warner when i was loading the tech trailer but i was not envolved so i thought it would have been 2nd gradish and rude of me to ask him about someone elses buisness. I do know more details but it is all 2nd hand and not my place to tell ya. I only reported things i know happened. i do not know how many spins their were so i just said there were a lot of spins. I know the yellow belli tank and a corvette spun but didnt think you guys needed to know that especially since i couldnt report accurate information like driver or entry # so i left it out. i didnt race, i had duty, so i couldn't personally comment on how bad the course was but i said they set the course up way, way, west to try to get good dirt and they still had to move the course during the wind hold. Dont know the details of who set the records but i know there wern't many.
No gossip, no rumors man, only the facts, ok not all the detailed facts, but still a highlighted summery of how i remembered yesterday
Ok also.... I dont want a reputation as someone who posts negative stuff I only want to post usefull info, and opinion. I am the type of person who perfers to tell ya to your face if i dont like you and this typing stuff is for the birds. I dont want to be known as a slammer or basher. The name calling i did to romero should have done it in a pm. I opoligeze to Jon, and everyone on this site for typing personal opinions. I think bashing in forums is childish and deminishes the respectability of the site, but yet i did it. sorry man... sorry to everyone but romero.
yours in sport
Kent
-
Rich the SCTA web site also said there was only 2 spins I know of at least five
1= yellow belli tank
2= corvette
3= red roadster
4= black roadster
5= red yellow roadster (last car)
kent
-
...........It seemed that the main point was if the added engine would actually aid the performance of the car. I have no idea how you would prove that one way or the other............Tom
Tom thanks for sharing that observation.
First streamlines are allowed multiple engines and also have to have at least 4 wheels and can drive 4 wheels, but they can have more than 4 wheels and they don't have to be in a rectangular configuration. So far I see that Rick hasn't done anything wrong to this point.
I've looked at the rule book, kind of quickly, and can't see anywhere where you have to prove that the second motor would aid performance or any mention of proving something along those lines.
Actually I think that what Rick did could evolve into some thinking where doing something like this might actually improve performance for a streamliner and not just add cu. inches for a class change.
Got me to thinking about using one motor until you get into top gear then using the second only for the final gear driving a second pair of wheels and running only one gear which would be equivalent to top gear in the main motor. This could simplify the drive train and only use the second motor when it is really needed.
Like the rule book says for streamliners "Innovation is unlimited". I find what he did to fit that very well :D .
Now saying that I am not in favor of moving up a class with the same size motor as in some cases packaging a smaller motor, especially in a streamliner or lakester, can give you an aero advantage over say having to package a AA motor in a body.
So I guess what Rick has done enters a "gray" area in my thinking right now and I'll have to think on it some :? .
c ya,
Sum
-
I opoligeze to Jon, and everyone on this site for typing personal opinions. I think bashing in forums is childish and deminishes the respectability of the site, but yet i did it. sorry man...
yours in sport
Kent
I accept you apology. Lets move past it.
John :lol:
-
2 black roadsters spun, so that would make 6..JD
-
Kent; I believe Rick was running on your record, which was Jacks record with my motor at one time. Or maybe Rick was running on the "Trailer" record some guy set pulling an Airstream at Bonneville. If Rick was running on your record I would say you have a right to express interest.
-
I am speaking to Jack now and he says the protest was disallowed
-
I am speaking to Jack now and he says the protest was disallowed
That does not make sense. If the protest was filed and the money put up then I thought it had to go to the comittee and they would make the recommendation to the board who would vote on it within the next 30 days, usually at the next meeting.
Does anybody know what the protest specifically was? I had talked to Rick yesterday and he said to me that he believed he was being protested but he did not have the details.
There must be more to the story than what was posted here.
-
Anyone know which two black roadsters spun?
-
Norm Francis was one. His time is posted (but not with a directional notation).
-
The other one was #299 Ed Stuck. His 210 was on a 225 record ...That was 210 backwards and in the spin..Others who watched it said 225 was in the bag...
He took out a cone on the other sid of the finishline and it left an imprint in the aluminum grille shell cover. The steel 32 sheel was bent up but if was fiberglass he probably would have lost the hood too...
-
Rich
no big deal... once i get my drive train dialed in, that record will come back.
kr
-
Kent...You said you don't like Romero spreading gossip and rumors so why do you see yourself fit to? Let whoever who is actually involved with whatever is going on there decide if it needs to be posted here.
Let's practice what we preach!
Nick 3rd.
-
Kent; Sounds good to me. Good luck.
-
Ok also.... I dont want a reputation as someone who posts negative stuff I only want to post usefull info, and opinion. I am the type of person who perfers to tell ya to your face if i dont like you and this typing stuff is for the birds. I dont want to be known as a slammer or basher. The name calling i did to romero should have done it in a pm.
What?
-
Rich
no big deal... once i get my drive train dialed in, that record will come back.
kr
Lets start a pool I put $20.00 on Rick.......
-
Put my $20.00 on Kent
-
Jim Knapp here, the one who filed the protest. Just so all y'all know what at least my "facts" are.
Following are two e-mails that I sent to the tech committee with my thoughts:
1st e-mail
Rick and his "fifth wheel trailer". Personally I was very impressed with the out of the box (out of the car?) thinking and never want to stifle that sort of creative thinking, even if it's to my own detriment. It's just too valuable a component of the racing we do. So, how to allow it and still carry forth the spirit of the rule? I was talking to Bob this morning and he said what if there is a rule addendum that said, "the vehicle must be able to demonstrate that it can accelerate while being powered by either engine." It would certainly satisfy me, and Bob BTW. Of course there would also have to be the safety thing, controllability from the driver's compartment, fuel shutoff, fire system, etc.
Anyway, something for you "powers that be" to chew on.
2nd e-mail
Hey, Dan,
I guess at least SBC is making some money off this protest.
I've been chatting around and spending some further time stewing about this whole deal. And I know you've got a board meeting (at least I THINK you're on the board) this Friday to cuss and discuss this and other matters. So here are some further points I would like to mention to you, and hope you mention to the board, in this whole deal.
And please, PUHLEEEESE know that I applaud the incredible out of the box thinking, and if Rick had done it properly I would merely stand in awe of what he did.
Issues:
The car was top speed of the meet in the first four meets this year averaging 255mph, and yet nowhere was there any John Bjorkman review of the new "trailer" addition, and no test runs of the clearly controversial new frame design were done.
The motor was a substance over form argument, i.e., more cubic inches were there, but it violated ?the spirit of the rules?, probably the single most important aspect of the interpretation of each and every rule in The Rule Book.
No 2 stoke gas/oil mix was available for the 2 stroke 500cc motor, so how did it run?
Fuel shutoff valve was represented as shutting the fuel pump off, a common method for motor cycles. However, the fact remains that the main motor was injected at probably 45 ? 55 psi, and the 500 cc motorcycle motor was carbureted at probably 5-8 psi. Where was the pressure regulator?
?The spark plug wire fell off.???? C?mon, Rick. You didn't get to be five times Points Champion by building cars that have that happen. I.e., Rick is a WAY better car builder than that.
In short, Dan, the 500cc motor did not run, and did not drive, nor was it capable of driving the car forward. It was merely a subterfuge to make Championship Points in my opinion a clear and flagrant violation of "the Spirit of the Rules" notion that helps to keep us from having a rule book the size of a phone book.
Further as to the safety of the "trailer":
Section 1.A. of the rule book states and it states in CAPITAL LETTERS to emphasize the importance of this point, ?VEHICLES SHALL BE PRESENTED FOR INSPECTION IN RACE READY CONDITION?? At no time during the tech/safety inspection of this vehicle did the 500 cc motor ever leave the back of Rick's pickup truck. When asked by the inspector, (and I was standing right there) Rick said, ?It?s a supplemental power plant.? The inspector said, ?OK? and, as I recall, that was that.
No fire system.
No chain guard.
The housing/cover to prevent the parachute from hanging up was duct taped to the car. DUCT TAPED!! See photo in Cars 2 section of October meet on the SCTA-BNI web site to see this (besides it's the only place in October where you can see a picture of the Bomber).
No throttle cable.
Motor hinged (I believe this to be true, but did not see the car "assembled" myself) at the bottom, hence no possible downforce, other than a few pounds, and therefore no propulsive traction could be generated.
Phew! A lot of stuff to consider, Dan-oh. I know Rick was/is creative. I know he's that kind of racer. I just think overall it was a slap in the face to SCTA and the volunteers that make it all happen.
My further comment: The requirement that a motor actually accelerate the car would support the spirit of the rules and prevent us from becoming ECTA, i.e., just run anything you want in any class you want. I mean if this protest falls through, my opinion, (to stretch my point only a little) is I can Duct Tape another Honda motor to the top of my liner and as long as it doesn't fall off I can set a record in any class I want.
Final remarks: And in closing, let me say, I APPLAUD THE OUT OF THE BOX/CAR THINKING. I just think the way it was done was a bit of a cheap shot, and frankly after a long phone conversation with Rick Sunday night, speaking about his car/motor and about his current "challenges" I can see why he didn't have time to produce a device up to his normal standards of excellence.
Jim Knapp
-
Jim, sounds like a good argument.
I was talking to Bob this morning and he said what if there is a rule addendum that said, "the vehicle must be able to demonstrate that it can accelerate while being powered by either engine."
So I take it that there isn't a requirement right now. I certainly don't see it in the rule book. And how on earth are you going to verify it? If the second engine moves the car AT ALL it would be legal even if it dropped 20 mph off the top speed.
The car was top speed of the meet in the first four meets this year averaging 255mph, and yet nowhere was there any John Bjorkman review of the new "trailer" addition, and no test runs of the clearly controversial new frame design were done.
This might be a safety issue, but hardly a protest issue.
The motor was a substance over form argument, i.e., more cubic inches were there, but it violated ?the spirit of the rules?, probably the single most important aspect of the interpretation of each and every rule in The Rule Book.
A rule book is a rule book. How can you verify that the engine was doing anything from a rule standpoint? It looked like it was hooked up to run.
2 stroke gas tank, fuel shut off valve, no pressure regulator, engine didn't run . . . Not a rule violation in sight. Is this what we want to see in a race car? Nope. I suggest that you formulate rule changes that would disallow this sort of thing and submit them. Spirit of the rules? Who's spirit? What god do you pick to determine spirit? Not that there aren't lots of us out there that think we are god! Substitute "Opinion" for "Spirit" and you see where that would go.
therefore no propulsive traction could be generated.
Now you are really reaching. If the tire touches the racing surface it generates traction. Still not in the rule book as a requirement.
If the second motor was in the back of the truck for pre race tech inspection it was attached for post race rules inspection.
The whole deal wraps up to "does the second engine accelerate the vehicle." If all the check points you mention were on Rick's car and it was capable of moving forward one inch it would pass inspection. What if the second engine quit one second later?
I'm not dinging you at all, I just don't see rules that could prevent cherry picking. Yes, 243 isn't close to the 263 it ran without the second engine, no doubt from the dead engine drag, but he did go faster than the record.
I would be buying a lot of duct tape for the Barnyard Bomber :D
(http://pages.sbcglobal.net/dean4/_images/0690.JPG)
-
so when you go faster than someone else in same class, with less displacement..........
you have violated the "spirit of the rules"................
I dont care that you did better than me, I am upset and protesting
the fact that you did better than me with less displacement........and
bolted on stuff that didnt help your performance, and you still beat me.........
the engineering data showed that near peak velocity......when the main
engine was maxed out, the rear of the vehicle became more unstable,
this extra displacement engine applies a 0.27 N-m force to the ground
not only providing additional thrust, but also facilitates rear end stability...thereby allowing a higher terminal velocity....in a safer manner...
are you only going to protest it when the spark plug wire falls off, or will
you when the blown nitro-version is functional and it goes faster....
Joe
-
GREAT picture, Dean. And no there isn't a specific rule that I can determine. It just that it seems to me to be the start of a slippery slope wherein you can "adjust" your class running higher or lower at will. Now is that wrong? I dunno. It just somehow doesn't seem "right" to me.
And joea, what's the beef? Rick ain't even running in my class ferchrisake. Perhaps you should protest my protest? I mean the rule book is filled with smaller engines beating bigger engines. That's not the point at all.
Rick is a Hell of a racer,creative, innovative, never give up kind of guy. I mean I've got 45 points on him but with Rick you gotta figure at best that's a dead heat until the fat lady sings.
All in all I'm just not crazy about the precedent here of being able to hang on non-productive displacement just to make a record.
'Nuf said. I gotta go take my nap.
Knapp
-
KNAP
You forgot to mention that the carb was wired "wide open throttle". thats why he did not have a throttle cable to it. Now i'm pretty sure that the rule book "REQUIRES" throttle return springs! how could that have passed tech. doesn't all vehicles running over or on a record of over 200mph need 2 tech inspectors to sign off on it. sounds like a safety issue 2 me having a POWERED motor running a wired full open throttle! even elmirage procedures state that "all drivers MUST be off the power immediatly after passing through the timing lights". you know what Jim ..... "F" him! Everyone knows you filed the protest to protect your interest in the championship just like everyone knows rick cheated to come up a class for points. and yes I said cheated cuz everyone knows that motor didnt work and couldnt work and they all saw through the crap and rick was the only one who hurt his own reputation by pulling this stunt. Using joea's engineering data, the motor should have been considered for balast only and not for displacement. It wasn't clever, It wasnt thinking out of the box heck he pulled it before with a weed wacked motor and got away with it, so he did it again. and if the SCTA keeps lettings him they will hurt there credability as a professional organization. I'm the one who should be bitching and filing the protest cuz it was my record he took. But ya know what... "F" him, once i get my drive train sorted out i'll get my record back and next year start picking off some of his records.
Dont wory pal..... Rick was the only one who made himself look foolish, hopefully the SCTA wont add there name to the list.
Kent
-
Oh i forgot to mention one memorable thing from my earlier ramblings about the Oct El mirage meet...
the lunch truck didn't show up!
Kent
-
so.........let me get this straight.......
engines are now evaluated for legality based on someones
definition of acceptable minimum performance....?
someone like Vesco ran multiple engines, and multiple
combinations of said engines...........one engine hurts 2 out
of three cylinders........and he still sets a record......and that should
be deemed illegal............
Im protesting him, cuz he is gaining points on me with an engine that
should be considered ballast.......
I have seen folks run a 6 cylinder with 2 rods and pistons removed
to run in a lower class........was he cheating....
ya got guys bolting sidecars on streamliners to run on classes that
have been created by the sanctioning body.........changing from four wheelers to two wheelers........to allow more versatility........
Kent I especially appreciate your passion, drawing from many
things to "fuel" the fire.......:):)
Jim I applaud all you guys and your efforts.......:):)
but thats the racket that has been created IMAIO (in my admittedly ignorant opinion)........
Joe :)
-
Gosh darn, joea. You woke me from my nap.
Thanks for the "kind" (humorous?) words. I guess what is sticking in my craw a bit was... well, let me digress for a moment. I like running at El Mirage/Bonneville. And I know the rules are ultimately for my benefit. However, I'm always concerned that one of the tech guys will not like something I did and therefore won't let me run. So I ALWAYS get my stuff reviewed weeks before an event, and even signed off, so that I won't have any surprises come race day.
So it was with this in mind that one day I called and asked about a class change for my 1997cc Honda. I said something like, "Can I use a weed eater motor like Rick did to bump up?" The response was something like, "No, that was a one time deal. The motor's got to make a real difference." That was NOT a quote but is my recollection using my aging neurons. So to jump a class I went and got a whole new 2.2 liter motor. Because I HAD to. And now this....
This is NOT about the points race. I don't play that kind of game. Cheatin' of any sort to win? Not here, pal. Cripes sake, I was out helping Costella on Friday tune his yellow thing so that he could "beat" me even worse than he had. I know, I know, he's a bike. Still I wanted that #1 on my windshield. Doesn't mean I won't help him. Or Rick for that matter. I mean sometimes I wonder... are we playing poker or chess out here?
Uh oh, almost bedtime. Gotta find my jammies.
Knapp
-
Speaking of starving . . . What happened to the lunch truck? I TRUSTED it to be there and ended up starving to death. I was looking at Tom Evans arm and it started to look tasty. :twisted:
-
Speaking of starving . . . What happened to the lunch truck? I TRUSTED it to be there and ended up starving to death. I was looking at Tom Evans arm and it started to look tasty. :twisted:
Amen, I went there and took a few rookies and said to them before we left "don't worry there is a food service provider out on the lakebed".... :lol:
-
Jim Knapp here,..................
I was talking to Bob this morning and he said what if there is a rule addendum that said, "the vehicle must be able to demonstrate that it can accelerate while being powered by either engine." It would certainly satisfy me, and Bob BTW. Of course there would also have to be the safety thing, controllable from the driver's compartment, fuel shutoff, fire system, etc.........................
Jim Knapp
This sounds like a reasonable change to the rules, but before it is considered if at all I think it would be important to talk to people like the Burklands that have legitimate 2 motor cars to see if they can/could comply with such a rule. I would sure hate to see some of them disqualified in the future by a hastily written rule.
Also as I mentioned in my other post I could see a second motor just being used in high gear where it could actually enhance the performance of a car, but not be able to demonstrate that it could propel the car from a start since it might only run top gear and not be able to get the vehicle moving in the first place.
Like I said Rick's effort might have just been an innovative approach to gain points, but it can start thought processes that might actually result in some faster streamliners.
c ya,
Sum
-
Joe... I have to agree with you on this one... Defining performance isn't the job of the inspector... Thou if your going to play this game, you have to go all the way and make sure it meets ALL the rules according to hoyle. Fire systems dual throttle return springs... so on and so forth...
Rick... that was a cool thought... funny ... and done correctly legal as hell.
-
for years people would strap a turbo on the side of a bike just to get into a blown class, some of them never worked. The SCTA started getting a little picky about it, especially the ones you could clearly see weren't gonna work and started turning them away. They finally added the words " must pressurize the intake system above atmospheric pressure" to the rule book and gained credibility by requiring the systems to work. if a system would be questioned they could simply say prove it with a gage. Now you know that any blown record set, is a real one and the boost was working.
Simple wording for the future rule book could say "all motors considered for displacement must prove functionality". if you cant start it... it don't count. You don't have to drive off with 1 motor, but everything should be there to prove it works. If burklands show up in tech and there is questions about functionality of there equipment and asked to start it... if the ground shaking doesn't convince the tech guys then by god they can grab an exhaust pipe to see if both motors are capable of working. If they ask me to start either my front or rear motor, no problem, they work. So let me ask ya this, if a guy showes up in tech with a motor stuck on the outside of his car, ya ask him to start it up and he says no i cant, it's locked in high gear, the carb is wired full open, the spark plug cap falls off, and there is no way to kick start it....... can he prove functionality?
As of right now I am still proud to tell my friends, family, and associates that i participate in SCTA BNI events. I think we are just as credible as NASCAR or the NHRA. But if we don't police and clean up these grey areas, our records will become suspect and our organization considered an good 'ole boy club. Lets make records we'll be proud of.
Kent
-
................
..........Simple wording for the future rule book could say "all motors considered for displacement must prove functionality". if you cant start it... it don't count. You don't have to drive off with 1 motor, but everything should be there to prove it works...............
...... So let me ask ya this, if a guy showes up in tech with a motor stuck on the outside of his car, ya ask him to start it up and he says no i cant, it's locked in high gear, the carb is wired full open, the spark plug cap falls off, and there is no way to kick start it...
.... can he prove functionality?................
..................Kent
I think those are good points and the only thing I would add is that you would have to be able to show (maybe on jackstands) that it can drive a wheel, if that was in question, and that it be able to do this under control of the driver.
c ya,
Sum
-
KNAP
You forgot to mention that the carb was wired "wide open throttle". thats why he did not have a throttle cable to it. Now i'm pretty sure that the rule book "REQUIRES" throttle return springs!
Kent
I remember back in the 1980's I was at El Mirage attending a race. One of the cars starts up and it sounds very funny, like the guy was holding the gas pedal to the floor and activating some kind of kill switch on the ignition. As it turned out, my thinking was right. The motor in the car had no butterfly's in the injector and they were using a kill switch to control the rpm.
My questions would be: if there is no throttle cable (wired open) why would you need a return spring? If there are no butterfly's are you still required to have a return spring? Can you still use a kill switch to control your motor?
Tom G.
-
All this discussion is interesting and usefull for future issues, but what about the protest that was filed last week? It will have to be decided based on the existing rules. What should happen to it?
-
Not trying to stir things up, just curious, how big was the motor added on to the back?
-
Not trying to stir things up, just curious, how big was the motor added on to the back?
It was was an older air cooled (suzuki??) 500cc motocross bike engine. I think it was 499cc actual.
-
What should happen to it?
Sorry John, but some of us don't have a vote, so we have to be observers and just need something to do :wink: .
I'm satisfied being a "non-voter" for now and I'm not complaining about not having a voice in the matter. Maybe some time in the future I'll join a club.
c ya,
Sum
-
What should happen to it?
Sorry John, but some of us don't have a vote, so we have to be observers and just need something to do :wink: .
I'm satisfied being a "non-voter" for now and I'm not complaining about not having a voice in the matter. Maybe some time in the future I'll join a club.
c ya,
Sum
Hey Sum, you may not have an official vote but you are allowed to have an opinion! The point I was making was how do people think the existing protest be handled?
Regards,
John
-
as with any controversy.....there is more to the story....
Jim......Kent.........im very appreciative of the dialogue....on
this, thank you for sharing it......I am a little less ignorant than
before....
Joe :)
-
What should happen to it?
I have no dog in this protest dilemma, but I do have an opinion. I think that Rick's idea was phenomenal, and he gets an Triple A for his thinking and effort.
But I don't think it is in the spirit of the rules, to be able to bolt on a motor to a chassis just to be able to jump a class. I know it is the streamliner class and you are allowed to run more than one motor. I feel that if you are going to run more than one motor in your streamliner it should be built accordingly, and have a large enough engine compartment to accept all the motors you intend to run. But to just be able to bolt on a motor and extension to your liner, in my opinion is not in the spirit of the rules. That is how I would interpret it.
No different than bolting on a dummy blower to change classes. Which is not allowed anymore.
Tom G.
-
tom
yes maybe back in the 80's someone ran a car with no throttle plates and controlled rpm by a kill switch. But not not anymore. let me ask this question, does anyone know of any motorsport where the vehicles motor have no throttle controll? and another question, How long do you think our insurance carrier will allow us to race unsafe vehicles that have no way to controll the throttle? i dont care if any of you think no throttle control is safe but another guestion for those smarty pants "Do you think the insurance carriers who cover our fine sport would think no throttle controll is safe?" Throttle controll and mandatory return springs is not only for the safety of the racer and the spectator, but for the longivity of out sport.
'06 rule book page30 section 3j "redundant return springs are mandatory" there is even a box on the back of the tech form that needed to be checked. to run without one is illegal.
-
everyone knows rick cheated to come up a class for points. and yes I said cheated cuz everyone knows that motor didnt work and couldnt work
Kent
KR-
Please refrain from speaking for "everyone". Not all share in your perception. I'm surprised you would call a fellow racer a cheater before they've been proven guilty - considering your history of defending suspected rule-breakers.
Nick 3rd.
-
Desoto...Not positive on your observation but in the 60', 70's and 80's, even now in one car I know of, some competitors used Cifford Clark type injectors which did not have butterflys. The barrel valve controls the fuel as it does with butterflys now and the fuel is what lets the engine idle.
The person may not have known how to correctly make it idle. A fuel shut off normally cuts off the running engine and there is always the spark. The duel springs would have been located on the barrel valve...J.D.
-
The duel springs would have been located on the barrel valve...J.D.
JD, Thanks for telling me where the springs would go. You lost me on the barrel valve controlling the idle on an injector without butterflies. I have never tried to run a engine with out some sort of airflow control.(butterflies) Without restricting the air how does one keep the RPM down, and not lean the heck out of the motor? I am just trying to learn something here. Thanks for any help.
Tom G.
-
tom
yes maybe back in the 80's someone ran a car with no throttle plates and controlled rpm by a kill switch. But not not anymore. let me ask this question, does anyone know of any motorsport where the vehicles motor have no throttle controll? and another question, How long do you think our insurance carrier will allow us to race unsafe vehicles that have no way to controll the throttle? i dont care if any of you think no throttle control is safe but another guestion for those smarty pants "Do you think the insurance carriers who cover our fine sport would think no throttle controll is safe?" Throttle controll and mandatory return springs is not only for the safety of the racer and the spectator, but for the longivity of out sport.
'06 rule book page30 section 3j "redundant return springs are mandatory" there is even a box on the back of the tech form that needed to be checked. to run without one is illegal.
Kent, you have very valid points and I really could not agree with you more. At the time I found it strange myself. The only reason I brought it up was that it had been done, so had precedent been set?
Tom G.
-
hey tom
been done before does not make it right. 2 things can stop us from racing 1) not enough racers showing up to make it worthwile, and 2) no insurance company willing to insure us. i think we need to do whatever we can to not allow an unsafe vehicle to compete.
kr
-
fuel makes the engine run not air..at least at idle...from then on is a combo..actually it always is..but still if you cut the fuel the engine doesn't know any difference...Hey it works...but I still won't say who is currently using it...At least not here...
-
If a gas powered "PONY MOTOR" was used to drive various accessories
such as cooling, oiling, or electrical devices and remove that load from
the drive motor, should it be counted in the size of the engine package if
it met all the various required safety criteria ?
-
yes, especially if the "motor" worked
-
Gee, if that is the case it sure makes the Suzi trailer accessory look dumb.
If you use the criteria "Would it drive the vehicle down the road alone?" look dumb also.
If a second legal motor really deloads the drive motor, it does contribute to getting the
vehicle down the road and should be considered part of the total.
-
Without going into the gas powered cars without throttle plates, what about the Diesel entry's? If your looking for throttle return springs on the butterfly I don't think you will find them.
-
Throttles are not just butterflies but include slides and barrels also.
The rule should read "Throttle return spring" and work in concert
with the fuel regulation requirements.
-
Hey JackD,
As long as we're asking what if's here, here's one I sent to another forum a little bit ago.
Let's say I entered a true dual engined liner (2 fire systems, throttle springs, etc.) with both motors hooked up end to end through their crankshafts and then out through a tranny and differential. Then let's say I left off the cylinder head(s) off of the front motor. Could I still use it to "upgrade" to the next class? What if I left off the intake manifold? What if I left off just the carburetor? Or maybe only the fuel line? What if I put a clutch between the motors so I could disengage the front one after the start? Ain't no specific rule about none of that. But at some point wouldn't you say "Bulls..t! That violates the SPIRIT of the rules!" and toss me out of the meet for being just too darn "cute" (or merely disrespectful of what we all are trying to produce here)? And yet as we all know, there is/are no specific rule(s) prohibiting that behavior. It merely falls to a preponderance of evidence argument or how insulted you might feel, rather than black and white fact.
Motors are composed of hundreds of parts. Miss a bit of key stock between the crankshaft and the cam drive gear and your motor don't go just as much as it don't go if you left off a cylinder head. It seems to me that a certain portion of the argument here is based upon the physical size of the "infraction" when, in reality as to whether your motor runs or not, size does not matter.
Okay, gotta duck back behind the sandbags.
(And FWIW I do NOT "sandbag")
-
If a gas powered "PONY MOTOR" was used to drive various accessories
such as cooling, oiling, or electrical devices and remove that load from
the drive motor, should it be counted in the size of the engine package if
it met all the various required safety criteria ?
From me the short answer would be no.
Granted another motor driving these type of accessories would take a load off of the primary motor and potentially make the car faster, but I believe the intent of the rule (probably needs to be clarified or we wouldn't be talking about this now) is that the second motor be used to "drive" the wheels and not drive accessories.
To take it too extremes someone with a really fast small motor streamliner could stuff a second motor in there that has substantial displacement to move up a couple classes and just power say an alternator. The motor could be added to the car in such a way to not hurt aero, yet they wouldn't have to figure out a way to power even one wheel. Not what I think we are trying to say to someone building a 2 motor streamliner.
Just my opinion,
Sum
-
In the 50+ years of the SCTA, the problem has not often surfaced but can.
All the situations that were described have occurred over the years and as
if by magic they were handled within the rules we have.
If the motor makes a contribution to the forward motion of the vehicle it is
part of the package.
A number of double engined packages have had 1 engine disabled and
sealed at tech to establish that it made no contribution.
The presumption is that tech is smart enough to establish the condition of the disabled part and seal it appropriately for the protection of everybody.
That same condition exists in motors with not all of the cylinders operational and tech figures it out.
The tech people have to earn the respect of the entrant or as in many
species they will be dominated.
They have to decide is it cheating, or taking minimum advantage of the
allowed rules.
All of that should never compromise safety.
My thoughts turn to the jet turbine with a minimum link to drive the wheels than would not hold the power but is a connection none the less.
With a rear facing exhaust, is it a wheel driven turbine or a thrust vehicle?
Sometime you have to stand up with the courage of your convictions,
employ the "UNWRITTEN RULE" and suggest the entrant "TRY AGATN"
In addition you have to decide was the intent to cheat or slide between the cracks.
If you think they are sliding, you might consider addressing that point completly in the rules.
If you think it was cheating, it is also you obligation to step on his neck and make an example for others.
Without seeing the application myself, at a minimum it appears it did not
meet the safety rules and beyond that proably never actually ran.
What rule was it that allowed part of the vehicle to be removed when it was presented at tech to certify a record ?
Did I miss that one ?
-
Jack,
"What rule was it that allowed part of the vehicle to be removed when it was presented at tech to certify a record ?"
I think that not having the unit attached at safety inspection is the question.
The car did not fit on the trailer with the unit attached. I was at the finish line area when Rick stopped. That is when I discovered that the engine was cold to the touch, etc. We put the engine and framework in my truck and back to certification. The unit remained in my truck during certification so I don't think it was compromised in terms of checking for record purposes.
DW
-
Does this apply?
2006 rulebook, page 1, 2nd paragraph, last two sentences:
"Any interpretation or deviation of these rules is left to the discretion of the officials. Their decision is final."
DW
-
If a second legal motor really deloads the drive motor, it does contribute to getting the vehicle down the road and should be considered part of the total.
Just throwing this into the air, then does electric fans, water pump, fuel pump, etc get figured into the size of the engine? No, but where do you draw the line?
-
That is a little more detail than I had but the cold motor would indicated it was not used in any fashion.
It seems clear enough to me.
That should do it.
In this case, permission should have been sought rather than forgiveness.
-
Leon
a line was drawn earlier this year when electric turbos or an electric blower was not allowed for the blown class
kent
-
What happened to the protest about the prosthetic trailer on the liner ?
-
protest denied... record stands.
-
Lots of great accomplishments that were ultimately soiled by this act.
I think it won't be soon forgotten. :cry:
-
Imagine a world after the Neb II is stretched and a second engine (exactly like the first one) is added . . . . . . . . Same frontal area and a bit more weight to aid traction. Hummmm. . . .
-
Imagine a world after the Neb II is stretched and a second engine (exactly like the first one) is added . . . . . . . . Same frontal area and a bit more weight to aid traction. Hummmm. . . .
Might as well add 100 weed wacker engines and go for a reacord in another class...100 engines, 100 tires where will it end?
Congrats to the "new record holder" :roll:
-
what's next :?
-
what's next :?
Next will be a slap on the other cheek.
The bad will be remembered long after the good.
THE END (sorta) :cry:
-
protest denied thats a bunch of horses**t !!!
-
Looking at the SCTA web site I see that Rick's record has been changed from red (Certified) too black (Pending). For my two cents worth, If Dan says the tag motor was cold that settles it.
-
The record will have to be changed back to red. See below:
All,
As Dan has stated below the first item (Traction Control) of the protest was scratched out and initialed by Jim Knapp leaving only the two the items concerning the addition of a second engine.
There are additional items that also should be brought to the attention of the board that were not mentioned in Dan?s short synopsis below that may be germane to this protest. The first item is that the action that the protest is looking for is ?Remove Record? and the second is that the ?Protest? was not made on an official protest form.
The protest was written on a ?Petition for Rules Change or Clarification? Form. I bring this to your attention because Section 1.I states ?Any deviation from the protest procedure will be considered as an invalid protest?. It could be argued that since the incorrect form was used to submit the protest that the ?procedure? has been deviated from therefore invalid. (I have no opinion on that)
As for the second engine not having a fire system?. I did not observe a fire system however, the vehicle did pass inspection and the inspector may have missed it or not have required it as the second engine was located/attached at the rear of the streamliner in its own metal containment box and not within the body shell. (My opinion is that I have not been a party to nor have I heard of a record being removed for an infraction of a safety related rule).
The final part of the protest is ?2nd engine added did not run to increase cubic inches. Engine did not contribute to run?. My observation was that the engine was fully functional, connected to a fuel system, designed and installed to ?run?. The rule book has several sections that offer guidance for a determination as to the ?legality? of this second engine and there are as follows:
Section 2.A ?Only Streamliners and Unlimited Diesel Trucks MAY use more than one engine at a time?.
Section 5.A ?Innovation is Unlimited? in the special construction class.
Section 5.A ?Cars in this class shall have at least four wheels, but they need not be arranged in a rectangular configuration?.
Both Alan Fogliadini (Technical Co-Chairman) and I inspected the vehicle at the lake bed after the protest. I also had inspected the vehicle immediately after the run with Dan Warner and observed the discovery process in which it was determined that the engine had not started (or fired) during the run. Much discussion and Q&A followed with the contestant and the ?Technical Committee? members that were present. As Alan and I are the Co-Chairman of the Technical Committee we decided based on our observations and our interpretation of the rule book to recommend to the board that the protest be denied. As a follow up we also wanted to run it by the special construction committee chairman John Bjorkman for his opinion prior to submitting our ?final recommendation? to the board. I had a long discussion with John today and he concurred with our initial assessment that no rules had been violated in his opinion. So at this point (although we have 30 days to make a recommendation to the board) the technical committee will recommend that the protest be denied.
I would like to submit our recommendation to the board this Friday at the meeting and will unless additional information or interpretation becomes available that would cause a material change to what we have observed to date.
Lee Kennedy, Technical Co-Chairman
As the pharohs used to say .."so it is said, so it is written...", or something like that. I'll have to watch The Ten Commandments again.
DW
-
I don't have a dog in this fight, but I want to make a comment about this. First, I am for ingenuity and it is rampant with this team. I applaud all that they have done.
I remember a similar situation back in the early sixties with Gary Cagle's Studebaker. He added a electrically operated cabin pressurizer to the engine and entered the Supercharged Class. There was considerable conversation about this, but it was allowed. It was functional and know one knows whether it really helped the speed. Many years later, I questioned Gary about it and he said that the blower actually did produce boost. Regardless it was allowed to stand because it was a functioning device attached to the engine's intake as a blower should be.
If I understand what has been said so far about this situation, it sounds questionable whether this was an engine that was capable of producing power. It is said that it was cold which indicates that it was not running.
Apparently, the engine was added to change classes, it would seem to me that it had to be capable of running and propelling the car. If it was engaged in the power train during the run, it seems to me that it would not matter whether it was running or not. However, If there is no way to know or it was not engaged during the run, it should be disqualified.
Tom
-
For a number of reasons it could never have run the way it was installed.
A number of required mechanical features were never installed or connected
that would allow the extra motor to ever start.
Another prominent entry was in no way cheating but wrote the wrong
number to indicate the class.
It was properly classes and identified in every respect but the board ruled
to take all his points away for that event.
It is those types of things that are not soon forgotten but will come back
to haunt you. :cry:
"Forgiveness is easier to get than permission."
-
My question is why wasn't it installed for inspection. Any simple over sight could have had bad results. What if something wasn't connected and the one wheel box came loose and caused the liner to go out of control. Was the tire rated for 200 mph, did it have 1" lug nuts. All of this needs to be addressed and considered for safe operation. If the motor was cold and not assisting to driving the vehicle as well as throttle control, fuel shut off etc. I don't think it was legal. I think this needs to be reconsidered by the contest committee be fore any record is given out.
-
Since the motor required oiling in addition to a fuel supply, where did it come from ?
The motor was not running at the start and was in fact out of gear.
A shifter and or a clutch connection might have really helped but it was not to be.
The tire was a Goodyear 5 inch that was designed for momentary use at
speed on the front of a Dragster.
Does it say anywhere it can be used in a drive position at any speed ?
Did it help ?
Sure it did, it helped SCTA to look like a fool.
"When you look like a fool, chances are that you are and you can expect
to be treated as such."
-
you brought up a good point jack... the dummy motor was a 2 stroke requiring a premix of oil or it will seize especially if the motor is run at wide open throttle for 1.3 miles!!!!!! If the motor was fed fuel from the fuel injected front motor, at 65psi to the rear carb, the needle and seat would be over powered and spraying fuel everywhere (fire hazard). The carb of the 2 strokes only stand 4psi. And i am absolutely positive that those dragster front runners were never meant to be a drive wheel on the rear of an 1000lb+ vehicle. I agree with you Jack, some one puts a incorrect name on there entry (no competitive advantage) and looses there points, and some one else installs a dummy motor (no competitive advantage) and gets away with it. One wrong is wrong and the other wrong is right!.... this whole thing is wrong!...
Kent
-
.......is it required that all available engines be operated
for the entire course length....ie 1.3 miles.........?
perhaps it would be desired to utilize all available displacement
in a fashion that facilitates the designers plan...........
perhaps one would wish to only utilize a certain percentage of
available displacement at strategic points along the race, ie
acceleration equals zero....feed in the 0.8 n-m force to rear...
or rear end oscillation exceeds x frequency....feed in 0.8 n-m
stabilizing force so as to enable another 10% throttle from
main engine.....
if someone utilized the engine-management tech akin to what is available
in production cars.......ie such as trimming in or out 2 cylinders at
at time as acceleration (our power consumption) dictates.............
........are you penalized for running the course with 6 of 8 available cylinders and achieving a record.......?
as far as the cold engine....(and lack of apparent standard oiling)....I think it was the cryo-genic treated
internal parts in corporation with anti-friction coatings.....methanol (or ERC gas legal a8 c with very high convective cooling coefficent)....
and enhanced intercooling fog distribution from the dry-ice...and h2o reservoir present on the vehicle.........and judicious usage of one cylinder at a time at 1/8 to 1/4 revolution pulsing........
with spark timing and fuel management that facilitated using only as much of the available displacement (and heat production) as needed..............to set the record............... the rate of convection...of 240+ mph late oct air moving over the most rearward engine...resulted in substantially reduced engine block external temp if evaluated by the primal hand touch testing parameter.........
Joe
-
Joe you been sniffing to much laughing gas. It's a stupid way of cheating in my book. Prove it is all functional or it ain't legal.
-
I gotta tell you guys... I agree with Dan's assessment and Tom Bryants... thou the outcome of each are different...
If innovation is unlimited... you can't control the quality of the Cubic inches only if they exist... same goes for, if it was cold or not... who cares, it was there... he toted it along... sure didn't make him have less cubic inches, Fuel so on and so forth... all it says is that innovation is unlimited and how efficient that additional cubic inches are is totally irrelevant. Unless you guys want to be like Nascar or something where they come and give you X restrictor plate.... or won't let you run a slow car because it's "not Competitive"
Fact is Rick came up with the cubic inches... added them however he got that done... and ran faster then the current record in that class... Sounds like a record to me.
Keith
-
Glen...........the rear wheel has recently been application specific.. closed course tested to over 246 mph with spectacularly positive results........
Kent, Rick was smart enough to regulate the fuel pressure and volume
down to such a parameter as to not overflow the carbs and still make the
hp required to set the record......apparently............I am just going off of reports...from the net........
I hear all you guys.......and listen to what each says..........and appreciate
it as much as I can..........
I am seriously trying to keep the dialogue alive for whatever it is
worth..........
if a guy builds a liner with two big blocks on it.....and passes
tech........and sets a record....and at the
end of the run.......one of the two engines is cold........is it then
protested and disallowed...?
and or is the racer punishable for the actions/certification of legality
by the tech inspectors and their stamp of approval.......
Joe :)
-
Keith, I don't agree, it was not inspected as a total unit, it did not have all of the controls connected, the tire was a front tire not a driven 200 mph tire I wasn't there but I beleive the proteast to be valid. How can one or two inspect the vehicle if the so called add on was in the back of the trailer. If it was Joe Blow it damn sure wouldn't have passed. If anything maybe a 150 mph pass to check it out and make sure it wasn't a problem.
Just my opinion. :twisted:
-
ps Glen.............SCTA currently and for a number of years
has advocated and certified running goodyear frontrunners
as drive wheels on the back of motorcycles..........
and thankfully the SCTA has made allowances for tires that
are shown to handle the duties to the utilized...........
Joe :)
-
I don't think these 5" ex drag race front tires are allowed in the higher speed cars. They blew several on the salt last year and the year before. I know Jack Costello runs them on his little liner but he ain't going over 250 mph.
-
You can rationalize this any way you want, but in the end it just isn't feasable to come up with a method that will allow the sanctioning body to verify that the second engine did what you wish it would do.
For 1.3 miles produce measureable power. Are you going to require a load cell with data collection on board? WAAAAY beyond what our sport, as volunteers, can possibly monitor.
In Rick's case it isn't in the "spirit" but doesn't violate any current rules. Say what you want about the lack of 2 stroke oil, cold engines, but the rules don't say zip, nada, nothing except 2A: "Only Streamliners and Unlimited Diesel Trucks may use more than one engine at the same time." 5A: "Inovation is unlimited"
If the engine was off at tech inspection, it shouldn't have passed tech inspection. But it did. Not from a class rules violation, but safety.
It did pass class vehicle inspection at the end of the run because no matter what you THINK the RULES don't require a live motor.
If the engine had been duct taped on like the picture I posted on page 2 of this thread it wouldn't have passed safety. If it was bolted on with no drive train you could argue is isn't a second engine. But Rick bolted it on, hooked up a drive train and did all the things that made it look like it COULD run.
So skip the woulda, coulda, shoulda, and show me rules that would positively, without a doubt, absolutely guarantee that both engines produce measureable power. And would keep me from kicking it into neutral after you checked it. And wouldn't put an excessive burden on the poor overworked tech guys.
-
I hear ya glen.......part of this is beyond the absolute speed...
but also the load.....Rick loaded the tire in a manner that resulted in
very little load.......and very high speed.....and the tire worked well
in that application........
as far as it being legal.......we would have to defer such
technical issues to the tech inspectors that deemed it
ok to run......then certified it as a record.......
-
Keith,
This could be done in jest and it would be funny, but this is serious competition we are discussing. My point was that the engine has to be capable of propelling the car and under the control of the driver. Whether it ran or not is not the issue. If it was not running, then it had to be turning over because it was hooked to the drive-train. Just carry extra cubic inches in the car does not make sense to me. What is to keep someone with a pickup from throwing a Big Block Chevy in the bed and going up a few classes. From the discussion so far, I cannot tell if anyone knows whether it was capable of propelling the car or not.
-
The engine was never hooked up to a drive train as evidenced by the
neutral position of the transmission and no way to connect it.
The tire is not a Goodyear Frontrunner that includes drive or braking
loads that would never survive use as a rear at those speeds.
If you realized that it left the line in neutral, when and how did it ever get connected ?
It is like a slight of hand trick that won't be repeated because everybody
knows it will be watched closer next time.
"The wonder of flight is soon lost when the Seagull leaves his mark on you."
-
I think Rick had his tonque in his cheek!
Harv
-
Tom, I just think the whole thing is a blast... We need to thank Rick for the entertainment....
Obviously i don't have a dog in the fight... It's just about enjoying the banter...
K
-
I think Rick had his tonque in his cheek!
Harv
Some would say it was more of a "Tongue in the ear type of deal." LOL
-
The engine was never hooked up to a drive train as evidenced by the neutral position of the transmission and no way to connect it.
Jack,
I may be mistaken but I am almost positive that I heard Dan Warner state to the board when they were hearing the protest that he was waiting for the vehicle at the far end and that he was the first one to the vehicle after the run. He stated that he checked the extra engine and it was at least as cold as the ambient air, if not colder and it was in gear.
I rememberd it because it suprised me.
Regards,
John
-
The crank would have been in pieces on the ground without the suitable
oil mix that it did not have.
The meeting info only states the crankshaft did not turn as the vehicle left the line.
So the question remains , When did it go into gear and how ?
I will go back and read Dan's report again.
-
OK Then,
If a guy wants to use an innovative way to launch the chute out with a JATO charge bottle just as he enters the first timing trap and it burns a bit.....and the first chute was not connected so that he has to go to a back up. The JATO bottle is now depleted but provided just a "bit" of additional thrust.
Is that legit? Well OK then.
Man I have just got to get one of those flexible rule books!
Regards to All,
HB2
-
The meeting info only states the crankshaft did not turn as the vehicle left the line.
What meeting info?
At the meeting I heard Jim Lattin state that he could see the flywheel and when the vehicle left the line he could clearly see that it was not turning. Someone else then stated that the flywheel was not visible and that the circular object protruding from the body on the drivers right side was in fact the flywheel cover and that since it is a cover, it could not turn and that there was no way to determine if the crankshaft was turning since the only rotating component that is visible was the sprocket which I think everyone will agree, was turning.
But rather than get into a he-said she-said, it should be easy enough to verify if someone has a picture of the right side of the engine-like-appendage. I recall it being a cover, just like every modern motorcross engine has but will wait till someone posts a pic of the right side.
-
A blind man could tell the crank never turned over if he ever heard a
2 smoke attempt a start.
John,
You mean you don't have a copy of the meeting documentation to read ?
I do.
-
You can't blame Rick therefore that his streamliner passed the tech.
In the moment when he got the ok the car was legal.
When the rule book allowed innovation....use your brain.....Rick done it.
And if the engine was only there to give the car some more ballast on the rear wheels.....why not........
At the picture it looks that the "ballast" was properly attached to the rear end of the car, the tape was just there to cover the gap between rear end and add engine to get it streamlined.
When someone thinks that the tape holds the second unit....not by 248 mph.....only the speed approved that this unit was properly fixed to streamliner.
Honestly, since this discussion start, I got a big smile in my face....
Rick, just to get this idea was innovation... :wink: ....you be in the same row as my old friend Jack "Innovator" Costella....you be worth to run his streamliner :D
What's the next trick :shock:
-
The tape was used in part to close the gap from the body to the box and
allow the chute to pass without snagging.
The rest is quite telling and really leaves a bad taste where there could be
respect.
A lot of that is gone now from both sides of the question.
The end result will be rules to prevent it because it was so poorly applied
and supervised.
It was a really poor showing all around.
-
Right wrong or indifferent, Rick has kept us talking about it for 8 pages...
I've been fascinated really.... funny Tom should mention the electric air box pressure ... I'd had that thought a few years ago... ( it was poo poo'ed but it was a great thought )
Joe Timney and I write the rule book for the ECTA and it's similar to the SCTA in large part... I'd hate to keep adding things to cover stuff like this... it's one of those things that is out there a bit. It would be hard to write the rules to the level necessary to cover the total imagination of all the racers... so yeah there has to be some level of fair play involved... however if a guy can use his wit to come up with something inside the rules and the members don't like it, obviously something has to be written to prevent it. In the mean time... if it's legal ... well then it's legal... if it's not then it's not... and that is for the board to decide... Since we elected them we have an obligation to support their decision...
K
-
The age old problem that KT outlines is the constant competition between
the entrant and the people charged with the responsibility of making it fair
for everybody and help the sport to survive for another day.
This stunt shows the extent both sides are willing to go and will continue
as long as it is allowed.
Sometimes you fall victim and take your lumps.
Sometimes you have to stand up and look past the today problem and
decide what is good for the long term.
In this case , both sides backed up.
SEE BELOW
-
I had not realised that I was attending the most controversial event on the dry lakes for many years!
Firstly, may I say that I helped Jack Costella with his 5050 bike on the Friday, so as the car entry of Rick contains his and Jack's name I might be biased (then again I am a Brit. so that may not count either).
When Jack and I were discussing Rick's plan for the meeting, during Friday trials with the bike ..... I recalled that there seem to have been other rules on equipment that dictate a vehicles classification, even when that items "use" may be in doubt. When the 'spirit' of all streamliners is innovation then it is hard to see that this idea detracted from that intent. It can hardly be called 'cheating' when unrestrained thoughts are encouraged. The car carried the cubic capacity and it was fitted in a manner that gave the impression that it was an additional drive element.
What the rule makers may need to look at is why in the 'lakes points chase process Rick had to run up a class, to gain more points than his competitors and more than he could get from staying in his original class with the one engine.
The 'safety shrouding' needed to save the chute did an effective job of blocking the view when the vehicle was running or moving. (The duct tape was an aero add on at the staging lane, as the unit was already well secured when they pushed up).
I took pictures on film so will not see the results for a few days more. I stood looking at the unshrouded unit (in the back of the truck) on Saturday when chatting with Rick, but I may not have taken any pictures.
As a first time observer there were a number of matters that might have been handled better, but that is a 'lakes procedural matter for the organisers. Not every car was presented at Tech on the ground in the condition that it would be run, for example.
It was a shame that there was the need to change course and only one run was made by racers, as I had hoped to chat with many more people as the event progressed on Sunday.
The near suicidal dirt bike riders should be worrying competitors and course workers more than a two engined streamliner.
-
You got it Malcom UK, it was done for the points advantage.
The car ( bike or whatever ) did not run in the configuration that it
was presented in tech inspection. Its a no brainer!
But you gotta give those boys credit, its a bitchen car and hauls ass!! :wink:
-
Yeah, well I filed the protest, and I still think the outcome sucks. It sounds a whole like Al Gore to me ("There is no controlling legal authority").
You know why there wasn't a specific rule (controlling legal authority) about this? Because the rule book is small. It fits into your hip pocket. There's a whole other thread about how to make it even smaller, fercrimminysake!
You know what keeps it small? The notion (I think it's actually spelled out in the rulebook but I can't find it) of the Spirit of the Rules. The notion that too cute doesn't cut it. That too much out of whack needs to be re-designed. IMO Rick was given a pass on something I would have been dinged on. Do I hold that against him? Only a tiny bit. Mostly I am in awe of his creativity and how he (and Jack C.) have taken this sport and turned at least part of it right on its ear. But it does seem application of protest and the results lacks consistency.
And I have (had?) friends on the board. Those are smart guys. I just can't help but question, why on one hand a person's entire meet is thrown out by entering the wrong number on an entry, while at another time an entry with so many things out of whack in so many different areas, and with a potential to cause so much damage physically and for the long term health of the sport IMO, is/was given a pass. And not just a small pass. Only two of the board voted for the protest.
I dunno.... I just don't know... certainly leaves me wondering.
Okay, enough of my rant. I know there's a bottle with some medicinal Tequila around here someplace...
Jim
-
John,
You mean you don't have a copy of the meeting documentation to read ?
I do.
Nope, not yet, coming snail mail. But that is not a problem as I was there and saw it first hand. I was just not aware of what you were referring to.
-
The near suicidal dirt bike riders should be worrying competitors and course workers more than a two engined streamliner.
Great observation Malcolm!
-
Page 6, 1.A Technical inspection
States the vehicle must be in race ready condition. Then why wasn't the trailer carrying a non complience 2 stroke engine not attached to the back of the vehicle for inspection. Having it in the back of a pick up truck ain't in race ready condition for pre race inspection. It seens to me there are a bunch of things wrong with this record and how it was gotten.
Glen :shock:
-
Page 6, 1.A Technical inspection
States the vehicle must be in race ready condition. Then why wasn't the trailer carrying a non complience 2 stroke engine not attached to the back of the vehicle for inspection. Having it in the back of a pick up truck ain't in race ready condition for pre race inspection. It seens to me there are a bunch of things wrong with this record and how it was gotten.
Glen :shock:
Glen,
I wasnt there, and I am for more innovation as anybody, however that said what you stated is what I have been thinking all along. RACE READY, does not mean motor in back of a pickup. Doesn't matter if it didnt fit on the car hauling trailer, the vehicle should have been dropped and motor assembly attached to the car and inspected that way.
And people loosing records for not putting correct numbers on sheet and this vehicle did not show up as per the rules and operating procedures of El Mirage and rule book but is given a pass.
On a side note. way to go rick on the innovative thinking.
Jon
-
...And I have (had?) friends on the board. Those are smart guys. I just can't help but question, why on one hand a person's entire meet is thrown out by entering the wrong number on an entry, while at another time an entry with so many things out of whack in so many different areas, and with a potential to cause so much damage physically and for the long term health of the sport IMO, is/was given a pass. And not just a small pass. Only two of the board voted for the protest....
There is a bright side to this for everybody upset by the decision. Immediately after the vote on the protest a motion was made by the board and unanimously passed by them directing Dan to insert wording in the next rule book specifically disallowing this type of device in 2007 and beyond.
Regards,
John
-
I still don't think it's fair. If I was the other guy I woild appeal the protest. There are to many things wrong with the whole picture.
-
Not speaking for the inspector who completed the form for vehicle 988, but I have inspected many vehicles in or on trailers. Most of the time I like it because I can see under it much easier. Vehicles we have inspected every month also seem to go faster than the ones we don't. In impounds we look at them again, just not a many.
If a car is going to change something, usually tires, we inspect them separately. Any body pieces which will be added I want to see them.
The 988 car moves only on it's trailer except for competition and staging. Eventho I have looked at this car many times with the body off every time and I would have wanted to see the additional engine mounted. This would have made for more work for the team but the body would have been off anyway. Not being there until Sunday I don't know if the inspector asked for this or not.
At this time Jim K. has a 45 point lead on the 988 car and a 128 point lead on the #635 car. It appears to me Jim K. will change to fuel for November and will run on an open 140. If he repeats from last month he will gain near 258 points.
If we see the The 988 car come back and repeat in the fuel class his total would be 274. The 988 car would need to run an additional 20 mph from last moth to catch a repeat performance from Jim K. That would be a great accomplishment especially on the light of what has transpired since October. (I hope my #'s aren't too far off)
We will all write a ton of stuff after the November meet and nothings over until the meet is done.
-
There is a bright side to this for everybody upset by the decision. Immediately after the vote on the protest a motion was made by the board and unanimously passed by them directing Dan to insert wording in the next rule book specifically disallowing this type of device in 2007 and beyond.
Regards,
John
And what did that language say, "Vehicles presented for inspection must be in race ready condition"?
Sorry, this whole issue just seems so cut and dried to me, otherwise I wouldn't have protested.
Now where is that fresh bottle of Tequila?
-
And what did that language say, "Vehicles presented for inspection must be in race ready condition"?
Sorry, this whole issue just seems so cut and dried to me, otherwise I wouldn't have protested.
Now where is that fresh bottle of Tequila?
Hey, pour me one if you're getting up!
The language was going to address the "dead" engine I think. The specific language was not discussed, only the motion enabling Dan to sort it out.
Regards,
John
-
Reading comprehension at initial tech and suitable enforcement of the
rules we have would have had a different result if enough balls were used
properly at anytime up to the end.
-
I think it was Pops Yoshimura that said:
?Competition is the search for an unfair advantage?
Looks like Rick and Jack might have found it.
The main thing that got me interested in the motorcycle land speed record was the great degree of innovation allowed in its pursuit. Many main stream motor sports have pretty much stifled innovation. NASCAR and Champ Car being patron saints of it.
Maybe I am just an old fart but I miss the innovative stuff that came out of open wheel and other forms of racing in the 60? and early 70?s. Jim Hall, Dan Gurney, Andy Granatelli and many others came up with a lot of innovation stuff that made racing more interesting in my view. Today it is understandable that with the huge amount of money that is being spent on corporate sponsorship they can?t allow some upstart to come up with a better idea and win races. Today it is much more about the driving skills than innovation.
Many of the innovations were subsequently banned and maybe rightly so in the interest of safety or fairness. It is when no innovation is allowed that things get dull in my book.
-
Innovation is very important to land speed trials. So is integrity. Faking 500CCs to move up a class, if you know the tag engine will not run and was never expected to run, isn't that far removed from finding a way to hide 500CCs to move down a class. Would you applaud such a thing?
-
The important thing to remember in those cases and some others is the
innovations not only got ahead of the Sanction Body but really worked.
They were not phonied up to sharp shoot anybody or anything.
They had the respect of their peers that wished they had thought of it.
-
Innovation is very important to land speed trials. So is integrity. Faking 500CCs to move up a class, if you know the tag engine will not run and was never expected to run, isn't that far removed from finding a way to hide 500CCs to move down a class. Would you applaud such a thing?
Rich,
While I agree they are close in semantics, they are light years apart in reality. If an extra 500cc gives you an unfair advantage then why doesn't being short 500cc put you at an unfair disadvantage?. In competitive sports these two could be considered opposites, night and day.
So if 500cc over is wrong then 500cc under must be right!
It's false logic but it makes a point worth thinking about.
Regards,
John
-
John: I was not referring to the advantage expected by adding or concealing displacement. I was referring to the concept of circumventing "The Spirit Of The Rules" in order to gain points. If a person has a 306 cid sbf for instance, he is in "C" motor class. If he finds a way of fooling the pump to lose 100CCs he is in "D". The one cubic inch he needed to lose (I know 100CCs is 6 inches) didn't really give him an advantage. That's not the point. I feel that the board was wrong to allow the record, if they believe the tag engine never was intended to do anything but add displacement. I wasn't there and only know what i read here, which causes me to believe that was the case. Did the 500CCs make the car faster? No. Did they allow it to run in a slower class. I guess so.
-
...I was referring to the concept of circumventing "The Spirit Of The Rules" in order to gain points...
OK, I understand what you are saying.
I guess the problem is that it's hard to legislate the "intention" of a competitor or the "spirit" of a rule. Funny thing is, people disagree on what the spirit is/was and state their intentions as different from what you think their intention was.
A safe haven for those who have the bad luck to be asked to decide what someone elses intention was or if the spirit of a rule (without the spirit being agreed on) is to uphold the rule as written and not try to add additional interpretations to it.
I can't say I would have decided it better than they did. I may have decided it differently but who is to say that a different intrepretation would have been a better interpretation. Surely some would have been pleased but then surely others would have been unhappy.
When one person intreprets a rule and deviates from the letter of the rule to a "spirit" of the rule in which he defines that spirit then he is flirting with danger. His "spirit" interpretation may have all, or nothing in common with anothers and who is to say which is more valid? When someone deviates from the written rule and intreprets it to their understanding of the spirit (which differes from your idea on the spirit) then how can that be defended? If everybody agreed on the spirit then it's easy, but not everybody agrees on the spirit of the rule, as evidenced by the fact that this whole thing even happened in the first place.
There is one thing that everybody agreed on, and that is the wording in the rule book. When the board followed it in making their decision they acted on our stated wishes. We now look back and say "that's not what we meant" but it is what we said. The rule book will be changed to properly reflect the wishes of the majority and this is a good thing. But, I don't believe it is fair to fault the board for making a decision based on the written and agreed upon framework for conducting our events. You may have decided it differently, as I may have, but their decision can be rationally defended based on all the facts presented at the board meeting (which differ from the ones presented here).
Also, keep in mind that the decision was on the filed protest. The protest specifically addressed the fire system on the car and the engine class. I don't know anybody who does agree that things could have been handled differently in the initial tech on the car.
As a quick test, does the "spirit" of the Gas/Fuel rule prevent a gas powered car from running as a fuel car to run on a softer record? How is this different? Does the V4F engine class allow you to add additional main bearings to your pre-35 ford flathead to add strength, thus allowing more boost/nitro and therefore more speed and more points? How is this different?
Just more ramblings to think about.
Regards,
John
-
John; My answer to you is that this discussion is missing the most important input. If Rick says that when He left the start line he expected the tag motor to start and add what ever it could to the effort, that that's good enough for me. If Rick were to say the tag motor was never part of the power train and it's only purpose was to add false displacement in order to move into a more advantageous class, then that's that. I thought the tag motor was a great innovation and really respected the thought that went into it. Now I'm not so sure.
-
PS At one time I think that Fuel class cars were checked to insure that they were running "Fuel". And I have no idea what Ford guys in V4F do. Plymouth guys would never run a 5 main bearing crank. Unless they stepped up to a Dodge block. I believe the rule book may be written to require original main bearing locations in V4F for the '07 season
-
Another example. I'm running my Vega with a 499 cid Roline in A/CGAlt. The record is 246.063 and my car will only go 175. So can I throw my lawnmower in the trunk and step up to AA where the record is 106.650? If I tow it behind the Vega is that OK? Would I bring my lawnmower to Bonneville?
-
Another example. I'm running my Vega with a 499 cid Roline in A/CGAlt. The record is 246.063 and my car will only go 175. So can I throw my lawnmower in the trunk and step up to AA where the record is 106.650? If I tow it behind the Vega is that OK? Would I bring my lawnmower to Bonneville?
If you can get it properly chained to the back of your Vega before the November meet then go for it! After then it looks like it would not be allowed! Just make sure you use speed rated tires and a double return spring on the throttle and that it is "in gear" when you leave the line :o
Of course, thats a joke. It would not be legal because you are in the classic class so you could not use just any lawn mower, it would have to be mfg prior to 1982 (?). Since all the old mowers had B&S engines you would have to enter it as a non-ford flathead engine (XO) which would preclude you from running in AA.
-
I believe the rule book may be written to require original main bearing locations in V4F for the '07 season
That is correct. The argument for this is that the spirit of the rule was always that the old blocks should not be reinforced. Of course, there is a group of people who dispute that. Who's "spirit" is right? The written rule make no distinction. If a protest was filed against a Ford Model A engine with a 5 main girdle, should it be upheld because someone says the it's against the spirit? Consider that there are many people on each side of this debate and both think they are right (of course).
-
Dual engines are not allowed in Classic Gas Altereds (or in Pickups to answer another query), so there's a problem rite thare.
Did the Protester get his C-Note back even tho the protest was disallowed? After all, he filed it with a Rule Change Form and that would look like he was bribing the officials. Inquiring minds want to know.
-
Stan: I expected someone would point that out. It was an "Example For The Sake Of Argument" OK I have a 510 inch Roline in the Vega, but I'm running it as a V7 to make the A class. No pushrods in one cylinder Can I now claim the eighth cylinder to move into AA?
-
Faking it is faking it either way and the other racers deserve better.
The rulebook deserves rereading before you cite gasoline as being
forbidden in the Fuel class. :wink:
-
Rich --
Now I'm not trying to be a smart ass (as is my usual nature), but removing the pushrods does not change the displacement (?). Running a 7-cylinder motor with a piston missing is okay. And adding the 8th cylinder back on is okay, and could change the class. But simply disabling a cylinder to change displacement would not fly (I think!).
Stan
-
With no push rods in the liner , who could ever know ?
"Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of man ?
Da Shaddow do." :wink:
-
The rulebook deserves rereading before you cite gasoline as being
forbidden in the Fuel class. :wink:
Yes and no on gas being allowed in the fuel class. "In fuel classes any approved liquid fuel may be used. Examples of approved fuels are: alcohol, hydrogen, nitro methane blends, nitrous oxide, and unapproved gasoline."
"the average Dielectric Constant for the hydrocarbons which compromise gasoline is 2.025. This is defined as a reading of zero (0) with the SCTA fuel Check Meter. The maximum acceptable meter reading is +/- 5, with zero (0) as the reference reading. A gasoline that has a greater reading than 2.3 will cause the meter reading to be outside this range."
So how I read the rules is: gas that is legal for the gas class, cannot be run in the fuel class, but gas that is not legal for the gas class can be run in the fuel class. So if someone jumps from a gas class to a fuel class and runs the exact same gas in the motor, I think that would be a violation of the rules, since they are running an approved gas.
Tom G.
-
Nope Tom... they only check your fuel in the gas class, it's a non-issue in the fuel class.
K
-
An unapproved gas has not been through the approved SCTA procedure.
That was too easy.
:wink:
-
so is that cheating, if ya knowingly run an approved
gas class gas in fuel class........cuz its not checked.....
Joe :)
-
Thanks Keith for the response. If they don't check why would they even have "unapproved gas" in the wording? Why not just say gas is approved? Now I am confused.
Tom G.
-
Approved gas as defined in the SCTA rule book has a specific procedure
associated with it and outside that rule is the other approved fuels.
"Mock not the afflicted" :wink:
-
so is that cheating, if ya knowingly run an approved
gas class gas in fuel class........cuz its not checked.....
Joe :)
Joe,
It depends on the "spirit of the rule" :o
-
so is that cheating, if ya knowingly run an approved
gas class gas in fuel class........cuz its not checked.....
Joe :)
Joe,
It depends on the "spirit of the rule" :o
Actually the gas procedures and approval do not depend on the
"DEAD SPIRITS" to figure it out.
-
Not to burst anyones bubble, but when a vehicle comes into imounds to get certified for a record if they are entered in the fuel class it's one more thing I don't need to look at....I don't care what is in the tank.
If the vehicle is running in a gasoline class I will get a sample to check.
-
If you can set a record with gas in a fuel class more power to you. It would just demonstrate somebody doesn't know how much power you get from Nitromethane.
From Smokemup.com
http://smokemup.com/tech/fuels.php
Gasoline - Gasoline is what most of our cars came setup so it's usually what we stick with. Gasoline is a mixture of hydrocarbons. The petroleum distillate fraction termed "gasoline" contains mostly saturated hydrocarbons usually with a chemical formula of C8H18. The air fuel ratio, A/F Ratio, for complete combustion is 14.7:1, stoichiometric. The A/F ratio for maximum power is approximately 12.5:1 - 12.8:1. This means that our engine at max power, 12.8:1, consumes 12.8 pounds of air for 1 pound of fuel. Gasoline has approximately 18,400 BTU/lb . Using the air flow calculator with the default inputs we get our 355 SBC consumes 567.53 cfm @ 6500rpm which is 42.64 pounds of air and consumes 2.89 pounds of fuel. Therefore if we are using gasoline our engine is producing 53,176 BTU's of energy at 6500 rpm.
Alcohol (Methanol) - Alcohol is usually used in the form of Methyl alcohol or methanol. CH3OH is the chemical formula. Methanol burns at a much richer mixture than gasoline does, between 5.0:1 - 6.0:1. That's 5 lbs of air to one pound of fuel. Methanol has approximately 9,500 BTU/lb. Using our 355, example above, SBC consumes 567.53 cfm @ 6500rpm which is 42.64 pounds of air and now at 6.0:1 ratio for Methanol is 7.11 pounds of fuel. Therefore if we are using Methanol fuel our engine is producing 67,545 BTU's of energy at 6500 rpm.
Nitromethane - is a fuel that is used mostly in specialized drag racing classes, "nitro funny cars" and "top fuel". Nitromethane's chemical formula is CH3NO2. The oxygen in nitromethane's molecular structure means that nitromethane does not need as much atmospheric oxygen to burn, part of the oxygen needed to burn nitromethane is carried in the fuel itself. Typical A/F ratio for nitromethane is 1.7:1 and nitromethane has an energy content of 5,000 BTU/lb. Using our 355, example above, SBC consumes 567.53 cfm @ 6500rpm which is 42.64 pounds of air and now at 1.7:1 ratio for nitromethane is 25.08 pounds of fuel. Therefore if we are using Nitromethane fuel our engine is producing 125,412 BTU's of energy at 6500 rpm.
TABLE 1
Fuel Engine Air Flow (cfm) lbs of air (lbs) A/F Ratio Pounds of Fuel (lbs) Energy Content of Fuel (BTU/lb) Total Thermal Energy (BTU)
Gasoline 567.53 42.64 12.8:1 2.89 18,500 53,176
Methanol 567.53 42.64 6.0:1 7.11 9,500 67,545
Nitromethane 567.53 42.64 1.7:1 25.08 5,000 125,412
Summary - As you can see from table 1 above the clear winner is nitromethane. But that doesn't mean to go out and pour nitromethane in your car and see how it runs, if you do your engine will surely blow up. Nitromethane is very expensive and dangerous to handle. The interesting alternative to gasoline is Methanol. Methanol will make more power, typically around 20% more power than a similar engine running gasoline. Some things to consider in running methanol is your fuel system will have to be completely changed / upgraded. Based on the table above the fuel system will have to flow approximately 2.5 times as much as the gasoline engine.
I guess the old saying is true. "Gasoline is for washing parts, alcohol is for drinking and nitro is for racing."
And that's without going into the benefits of Nitrous Oxide.
-
If you can set a record with gas in a fuel class more power to you.
Some would say the same about setting 3.0L records with 2.0L class engines...
-
Only 6500 RPM ?
It is no wonder the F-1 engines use gas.
If you can't burn the load in the time it has, the rest is a waste.
-
Speaking of F1 and 6500 rpm, check out this video.
Somehow I don't think the IDLE is 6500. He shifts up through the gears in this video.
http://www.angeltowns2.net/smele/video/f1flames.wmv
-
If you can set a record with gas in a fuel class more power to you.
Some would say the same about setting 3.0L records with 2.0L class engines...
I had originally posted that you could not run gas in the fuel class and ended up with egg on my face. :oops: Rules change and I apparently did not know. My mistake.
We need to go back to the 1986 rule book as far as the definition of fuel goes. Section II-2. Fuel: In fuel classes any approved liquid fuel may be used. Approved fuels are: Nitrous Oxide, Nitromethane, and Methanol.
Notice NO Gas of any type was allowed in the fuel class.
SCTA (we) need to be consistent in our rules. And as much as I hate to say it John is right. If you are allowed to run gas in the fuel class to set records, you should be allowed to jump up a class with smaller motors. It is no different.
In my opinion the gas powered vehicles have their own class, and should not be allowed to run in the fuel classes. No different than a guy who has a 2.0 Liter motor and wants to run in the 3.0 liter class.
Tom G.
-
Unapproved gas has been in the rulebook and in use for many, many years longer than that.
Gasohol would be an example of unapproved gas.
When SCTA realized their oversight about unapproved gas, they fixed it.
Phony engines are a much later deterioration.
-
Tom,
Your wrong on this one. If I set up and dyno my 1200 hp SBC on V16 and don't want to change from my known base line I must run in the fuel class. If I don't use the vendor's gas at a salt event then I am forced to the fuel classes.
Jack D can remember the days when a gas provider was difficult to find. Think California Old gas. The concession to require the use of a vendor's gas was made to ensure the continued support of known constant.
What ever happened to the Lancaster based VP dealer who promised to support ALL events? He disappeared after two El Mirage meets.
DW
-
"California Gold" was arranged for by Don Vesco and it was the gas of the event.
It burned so slow and required so much liquid that it immediately cost
two broken, high dollar engines. Bill Brooks BBC was one and my Buick was at least one another.
We got some gas from the airport and ran in the fuel class to set a record
with the small car.
Then I backed it off to 125 mph and Wendy let various lady members drive and get a film tape of the whole deal.
I modified their sticker to read "CALIFORNIA MOLD " :wink:
"Be very careful when you cite histoory."
-
Glad I think like Dan :shock:
Tom, visit the fuel provider. He will tell you he can sell you a gasoline that will NOT pass the SCTA's DE test. Also if I enter my car in a fuel class why would the tech team even want to look in my tank? It has no seal, I'm running fuel class, I'm in impound, Oh ya if you look we've never set a record in the fuel class even though we could have, but someone else has.
-
"California Gold" was arranged for by Don Vesco and it was the gas of the event.
It burned so slow and required so much liquid that it immediately cost
two broken, high dollar engines. Bill Brooks BBC was one and my Buick was at least one another.
We got some gas from the airport and ran in the fuel class to set a record
with the small car.
Then I backed it off to 125 mph and Wendy let various lady members drive and get a film tape of the whole deal.
I modified their sticker to read "CALIFORNIA MOLD " :wink:
"Be very careful when you cite histoory."
We set a record using the "gold" in car 42 @ 242, didn't you test with it? That's right we didn't either, so I softened the tune up because I didn't know what the fuel would do... that's my history.
-
Some consideration should be given for use of E85 as it will become more and more of an issue in the potential "greening" of automotive fuels.
The biodiesel movement is growing and the E85 thing can be a good thing for automotive racing.
As I understand the rules, E85 would fall under the current definition of fuel that is other than the gasoline supplied at a meet.
Regards to All,
HB2
-
As soft as I made the tuneup, my Buick driver could not feel it going away
as opposed to Wendy in a Ford that knew exactly what was going on and
backed off.
We used Hilborn and Holly, not Muchotech and Electrosmart.:wink:
-
As soft as I made the tuneup, my Buick driver could not feel it going away
as opposed to Wendy in a Ford that knew exactly what was going on and
backed off.
We used Hilborn and Holly, not Muchotech and Electrosmart.:wink:
I understand how much "electricks" have helped us today, but in that day and age we too were running draw-thru holley carbs Jack. Maybe it was the Buick :wink:
I know "my" history.
-
The same setup on ERC bumped a 178 record to over 200 the following year with no tune up changes.
Perhaps the Pushrodders and the 2 smokes should be protected from the OHC motors. :wink:
-
The year of California Gold I was running nitrous and brought 20 gallons of VP-14 to the salt along with 6 bottles of nitrous.
My son set a record in our 40 Chev in the basic 3 passes. (you do remember those days). I had 3 guys come up and ask how I didn't blow up because they thought I was using the "sh-t".
I had 15 gallons left and I was a very popular guy before I left and I didn't carry any home.
-
Because of the time schedule, I met Wolfington down at the airport and
bought 5 gal. of aviation gas (sorta fuel) at 5:30 in the AM.
I didn't even want too put the Mold in the truck or dump it so I gave it back.:wink:
-
The reason I brought up California "Old" and Jack D is because my memory is not as good as his, or his stories.
I knew the record would be set straight when Jack checked in.
Harold, out of approx 480 entries at Speedweek only one used E85. Set three records in fuel classes. Doesn't seem to be a need to change.
DW
-
I'm a strong proponent of E85, (run 3 cars on it). It is becoming a very popular performance fuel.
I think at least at the moment it belongs in the fuel class as it has more in common with the methanol fueled engines than it does the gasoline engines.
It is worth somewhere between 5%-8% power increase simply by changing fuel and tweak of the tune over the same engine on a comparable octane gasoline for NA engines. On turbocharged or blown engines it compares very favorably with methanol for performance while being less toxic and less corrosive.
One issue with E85, is unlike pump gas, there is not a well defined "standard" E85 blend, as the gasoline component is not well defined in the ASTM standard as I recall. Any blend from 70% to 85% ethanol can be properly identified as E85.
Larry
-
As the laws catchup with the fuel business, things will change.
I think we can trust ERC (Rick Gold) to do the best for us
as long as we do our best for him.
At sometime in the future it might mean changing our requirements and
it won't be a knee jerk reaction.
We have him to thank for many years of a good product and advice.
Ya just gotta know he loves the sport because he ain't making no money.
We all suffered a knee to the crotch here lately but we can fix it too. :wink:
-
I like ERC! i never had a problem with it. I also like the fact that i can get fresh gas every month.
kent
-
As many of you know, the Bonneville 200 MPH Club tried to show its appreciation for the great job Rick Gold and his people at ERC do for our members by presenting him with our MAN OF THE YEAR AWARD 2005 - without his advise and excellant products onsite we would all be in trouble. Pat Kinne
-
I couldn't agree more about your comments concerning Rick Gold and ERC. Great folks and great fuels.
-
If you wait long enough at ERC, you will see everyone that's running.
That's not all bad.
FREUD