Landracing Forum
Bonneville Salt Flats Discussion => Bonneville General Chat => Topic started by: Dynoroom on June 14, 2017, 12:05:24 AM
-
Interesting what you can do in the tunnel...
But should you?
-
Ooh lemme try...
That's a good lookin' lakester.
Nice chute fairing... I mean spoiler.... chute fairing... spoiler...
I love the smell of protest in the morning.
:-D
-
Nathan --
That's not a lakester, er, well, maybe a pregnant lakester. You again, look some more, there's a roadster lurking in there.
Stan
-
We all told Ron that this is what would happen.
-
Ooh lemme try...
That's a good lookin' lakester.
Nice chute fairing... I mean spoiler.... chute fairing... spoiler...
I love the smell of protest in the morning.
:-D
Seems pretty obvious, but I hate the "horizontal" wording. Clearly someone is reading that differently
-
Ooh lemme try...
That's a good lookin' lakester.
Nice chute fairing... I mean spoiler.... chute fairing... spoiler...
I love the smell of protest in the morning.
:-D
LOL. :cheers:
Sid.
-
Ooh lemme try...
That's a good lookin' lakester.
Nice chute fairing... I mean spoiler.... chute fairing... spoiler...
I love the smell of protest in the morning.
:-D
Hmmm...seems our session got "leaked" to the press! Chute fairings are legal and in spec, according to the tech official who approved the design & measurements before we built them. We learned last year that the drop in the '27 turtledeck was generating almost 200 lbs. of lift so a redesign was in order to keep that "spin demon" away!
This is our second year and we're having a blast. Going after the "H" class records this year, with a "little" more HP than last year's "G" motor.
Mike B
MKM Racing
P.S. The Mojave Magnum events are back in 2018 with a more "land speed-friendly" format for those of you that want to come out and test. More details coming this fall.
-
Hi Mike, I am not the last word or in anyway official. But that arrangement seems to be in direct violation of the written rule as well as the intent of the rule. If you set a record I would expect a protest. If you are ruled to be legal I would like to hear that, because it is not how I understand it. I just like want everyone to be on the same playing field. I would rather have the heads up before hand,
-
Hi Mike, I am not the last word or in anyway official. But that arrangement seems to be in direct violation of the written rule as well as the intent of the rule. If you set a record I would expect a protest. If you are ruled to be legal I would like to hear that, because it is not how I understand it. I just like want everyone to be on the same playing field. I would rather have the heads up before hand,
For RMRs, the rule is clear that at least 35% of the original body must be visible looking down from the top, and we are legal in that regard. Tech verified the measurements before we cut a single piece of aluminum. Just where, exactly, do you think we are illegal?
-
Superb job of rules interpretation!!
-
The wording is a little tricky but the Horizontal part is the thing I question. When viewed from above can't be more than 65 % as measured in a horizontal plane from the top view. I have always read that to mean you can't modify more than 65% of the width of the car/decklid area. Whether it is chutes/fairings or any combination. If you measure the width of the car not more than 65% can be altered. Your chute/fairing assembly runs the entire width of the car completely changing the decklid and how the air flows over it. Completely negating part of the challenge inherent in running a roadster. This part of the car is closely scrutinized by the others in the class just for this reason. I will not be the guy to protest, but someone will, and unfortunately some will wait till you set a record and then see you frustrated on the salt.
Now its just my opinion but I think there are better arrangements that can over come the lift and not create the drag that that probably does. I wish I had the opportunity to try to verify some of my ideas on my roadster in the tunnel. I was really happy with the back of my RMR and it was well within the rules (the way I understood them anyway) I may have been wrong all this time.
-
I think the fact that this was posted here, (and the first two responses reinforce that) others are questioning it. Please Don't kill the messenger! Again if I am wrong would love to hear it.
-
I think the fact that this was posted here, (and the first two responses reinforce that) others are questioning it. Please Don't kill the messenger! Again if I am wrong would love to hear it.
I'd guess that the first two responses are from TRADITIONAL roadster guys and don't reflect their opinion on the legality of that car within the rules (and may not CARE if it's legal). :roll:
YMMV
Mike
-
:-)
-
Wouldn't the best idea be to get a note of approval from whoever said that building in that manner would meet the rules and add that to the car's documentation? :? :? :?
If it's preapproved there shouldn't be a problem.
Pete
-
It has been suggested that different inspectors have different opinions...... :?
-
Surely you jest :-D
-
The Inspectors do not care about Class Legality, they are only looking for minimum safety regulations.
The Class Committee are the ones who Certify class compliance and the Records.
-
That is right, inspectors have no say in class legality. If an inspector see's something that is a violation that may keep someone from getting a record they should say something out of courtesy though. But getting something approved by an inspector doesn't guarantee class legality. If this is signed off as legal, I have no problem with it. I just know some others in the class that would like to know. I would like to see more open discussions about this stuff in the future. Everyone is afraid to talk about it because they don't want their car scrutinized out of retaliation. There are Oops as far as the rules go and then there are blatant cheaters. In this case I think it may be a liberal interpretation, but I'll be the first to to say good job if I am wrong.
-
Hmmm...seems our session got "leaked" to the press! Chute fairings are legal and in spec, according to the tech official who approved the design & measurements before we built them. We learned last year that the drop in the '27 turtledeck was generating almost 200 lbs. of lift so a redesign was in order to keep that "spin demon" away!
What may be in question is do the "chute fairings" act as a spoiler. If it looks like a spoiler and works like a spoiler, it's a spoiler.
-
I am not a roadster guy---one can mount the chute to act as a spoiler and they have been. The rules also say that one can have fairings on the headrest and the chutes.
Lakester rules are simple--no streamlining outside the inside plane of the narrowest tire.
-
Ah yes, The Spirit of The Rule rears it's ugly head again. ;)
Doug :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:
-
Most of us have to depend on "The Written Word" for the rules
-
It clearly states in the rule book that it is Legal to cover 65% of the rear turtle deck from a topical view looking straight down and it is measured from the inner rolled edge of the seating area of the stock body. None of these people that are questioning the body has seen a topical view of this car so they do not know the exact coverage but only speculating that it is covering too much. Since I am the one who talked to Russ Eyres about how they measure for total coverage and I am the one who mapped it out and fabricated the panels I assure all the haters out there this it is under the 65% allowable coverage and it is Legal!
-
:cheers:
-
Randy, I don't think it's a case of haters per se so much as skeptics. Many have gone through inspection with what they felt was legal and found out otherwise. You've certainly followed the best procedure so far. Documentation is still your best friend.
Pete
-
Randy, you seem to be ignoring the word "horizontal". Why is that word in the rule if it is simply meant to say you can cover 65% of the TOTAL area. Nobody is hating, the fact that is your first post is a little telling in itself. There is no malice intended and people deserve clarification if something is against the rules by their understanding.
-
Randy, you seem to be ignoring the word "horizontal". Why is that word in the rule if it is simply meant to say you can cover 65% of the TOTAL area. Nobody is hating, the fact that is your first post is a little telling in itself. There is no malice intended and people deserve clarification if something is against the rules by their understanding.
And, "Eddie", you are hung up on the same word, and if the "people" want clarification of a rule, let them ask the Rules Committee like we did, instead of airing out opinions on a public forum.
Here's a DIRECT QUOTE from Russ Eyres himself in response to our request for clarification, BEFORE the mods were made: "The simplest way to tell if your car is legal from the 65% rule is to imagine a 2 dimensional view of the entire body from the rear of the cockpit to the sides and aft edges of the car taken from directly above at significant distance – or in architectural terms a “plan view”.. Then take the same view of that area after you have built your add on structures for whatever legal purposes and see if there is still 35% original body in view from a vertical projection area perspective."
As an aside, the changes we made actually increased the Cd by .05, not decreased it. What it DID do was stabilize the car to make it SAFER at speed by removing dangerous lift and move the CP rearward of the CG, which, as we all know, is vital in a Bonneville car, ESPECIALLY a RMR, to prevent spins. We had to add horsepower to overcome the additional drag to achieve the same speed as last year, so I ask you, Eddie, how in the world can this change be considered advantageous and not in the best interests of safety, which we all want?
Also, to clarify: Randy is a Bonneville roadster builder and record holder in his own right, not some neophyte, and deserves credit for knowing what he's doing. He called Russ personally to get the clarification mentioned above, and all is fully documented. Finally, since we did not approve of the release of our wind tunnel photos (we were not asked), we will have no more to say on this matter in a public forum. :cheers:
-
Okay let me break it down.
1. Lighten up... if your car is legal you have nothing to worry about.
2. If your car is legal you shouldn't be afraid of having pictures of it shown or having it discussed.
3. If you have prior approval you are golden. But you don't, (from what you are saying) you had Russ repeat the rule to you.... BEFORE your changes. Send him pics of your actual car now and get it approved.
4. With prior approval you can thank me at Bville for saving you that protest that is bound to happen.
5. Spoilers aren't legal
6. Parachute fairings can be no bigger than the parachute. Your car has a clearly defined headrest fairing. You have extra material 3-4" between the parachute fairings and headrest fairing. No purpose other than making your SPOILER bigger. So you are breaking the parachute fairing rule as well as the 65% rule.
7. I am hung up on the Horizontal word because it is the key part of the rule you guys are ignoring.
8. Yes you increased your drag which is exactly what I theorized would happen. This is considered an advantage because you can use more hp (even though it cost some) than someone without a spoiler. If it wasn't an advantage.... why did you do it?
9. Nobodies questioning anybody's credentials. A rule interpretation is being questioned, nothing more.
10. Rules are commonly discussed, this happens to be the single most touchy area of the RMR class. I am sorry if your feelings are hurt since your car is the focus of this particular rules discussion.
Again, my only goal was to make sure you guys had a heads up that you may get protested. It is common for guys to call with a question, get an answer they interpret to what they want to hear and call it approval. Send pictures get approval on actual car.. Done.
You could have politely said "we think we are legal", but if you want to actually discuss it... this is a Forum dedicated to discussing land speed so I don't see what the problem is. I don't see anything wrong with a polite, respectful conversation about rules.
Now I will ask the others following this discussion. Is there anyone other than the car owner/fabricator that sees this car as being legal?
-
When I first saw the pics of Mike's car, my immediate take was " how is the extra width of the chute fairing(s), as shown by the 2"or 3" of material between the chute(s) and the fairing (and resulting top surface) legal?". 5.B.1.a clearly states, as Eddie does, that the chute pack fairing can be no larger than the chute pack. It appears that this design has traded length for width, and the extra width cannot be justified, in my opinion.
The car in my avatar was once, in part, responsible for the 65% rule (at least I like to claim so); the other main contributor, I believe, was Anthony Young's C/FRMR. Our #1429 has gone through record certification four times (2013 & 2016) in its current configuration, which was implemented after the rule was passed. Prior to the rule (and subsequent redesign) the car passed record certification nine times (2009 thru 2012). I, too, have had many conversations with Russ Eyres about the intents of RMR rules and their implementation. The only way in which our chute pack fairings exceed the chute pack dimensions is by the thickness of the fairing material (0.050").
I have refrained from commenting up 'til now since I have a dog in this fight (sorta), but would never file a protest against a car that is not in one of our engine classes. Who does have "status" to file a protest against any car for anything is not clearly defined in the rule book, but that's a whole other kettle of worms (can of fish?).
vic
-
I don't think that a different engine should "legalize" a competitor in the Category one competes in.
-
I don't know about the "rules" but that's some clever work there.
I'm interested in how it runs. You guys can fight over the legality etc. :wink:
-
I don't think that a different engine should "legalize" a competitor in the Category one competes in.
I don't think so either, Stan. I can't legalize anything in any category, and I only worry about those trying to beat our numbers in the classes that we run. I shared my opinion in the hope that it might help Mike and Randy reevaluate their approach before running the record cert gauntlet.
My opinion is worth exactly what people say opinions are like, as is yours.
vic
-
There is a problem when people don't say anything. Its unfair to the entire class regardless of who's record it is. It makes it difficult moving forward to call others on it and harder still to draw the line in the sand. I hate how many roadsters I see making their tunnel go up into what should be the original lower panel of the rear body. Another thing that is done on the car in this thread. Where in the rules does it say "original body except this pc right here" A lot of cars have got away with modifying this lower panel which to me is a clear violation, but how do you start calling people on it now? Too many have got away with it too long. If you took the tailight panel off a coupe and made the diffuser come up to the spoiler people would protest right?
I was in line in front of a comp coupe ( and i was helping run a comp coupe last year) This car was so clearly illegal it floored me. I talked to the owner who admitted that his last car was denied several times for being illegal. I asked him why he would go through the effort to build a new car that was still clearly illegal. He took exception to this comment. So it begs the question.... when did it become rude to question someone instead of it being rude for them to cheat? I use the word cheat with him because it was clearly an intentional thing after speaking with him. Of course he had a long speech prepared because he knew in his own mind he had crossed the line.
The thing I love about this sport is the ability to beat the other guy with ingenuity and trying something new. I really like a guy who is smart enough to get an advantage as long as it is within the rule. Now there are some gray areas out there that can definitely be exploited to which I say go for it. But there are some areas that will get you in trouble also. I think everyone who saw my RMR questioned its legality at first glance. I heard lots of hushed discussions but nobody said anything to me directly. I won several bets about being able to get in and out as required. To my knowledge my car was completely legal. I like the class because it is about as extreme as you can get with a stock bodied class. But I also tire of the lakester comments...
The guy with the coupe had taken two different years of bodies and combined them. Two different fiberglass drag racing repops that were no where near the originals to begin with. So I asked how he was going to provide documentation of the original body. He had made a body that I don't think was ever available in that configuration. In this case he had gone so far off the reservation it was really maddening. When you get down to it, all we get at the end of the day is bragging rights. I would rather have a record I could be proud of and not be proud that I got away with something.
-
" when did it become rude to question someone instead of it being rude for them to cheat?" .......Yes, and deciding to protest a fellow competitor is not an easy desision. Some of you know I did this years ago to a "famous" competitor, got villified on his website forum, and was the all around A$$hole and bad guy for doing nothing wrong. For this reason I will probably never protest again.
PS. I won the protest
-
Rules are for the interpretation of wise men.
-
No such thing as a "pre-approval". Ask the Salt Cat guys about being "pre-approved" and then losing all their records after someone else realized what they were running was illegal. Any car can be protested no matter how much the committee chair or someone else has lead you to believe you're legal. As much as you want to believe, the committee chairs aren't the final word. I have a strong feeling that other members of the roadster committee won't be happy with your "chute fairings". All it will take is someone to protest the car and then this will go through the entire roadster committee for review to which they'll make a recommendation to the board and the board will make a final decision. You have a couple guys here already squawking and they're only a small portion of the entire RMR group - what do you think will happen when the car actually shows up for competition? There was a Corvette (I think) that ran a few years ago that had square tube exhaust with 8 tubes that ran all the way to the back of the car and all the tubes were welded together so the exhaust seconded as a belly pan. Guess what? Records pulled at board meeting after Speed Week. It can happen.
Saying that an aero feature is for safety is the biggest lie any racer ever told plain and simple. You spent all that time and money going to the wind tunnel in the interest of safety? GET REAL!! Your only interest (along with everyone else's) is to go faster! That's the same lie the guys pushing to allow wings on Comp Coupe's and Mod Roadster said - oh it's in the interest of safety. Ha more like in the interest of going faster. Maybe your car's too light and you can't get that power down and having 200 lbs of lift from the body isn't helping. Now that you've got more power, you need the aero to help get it to the ground so you can go FASTER. Your car is lakester long - was it really on the verge of spinning? There are cars with a lot more power and a lot less wheelbase that aren't spinning and going a lot faster. Hard to swallow that excuse.
You've gone so far to implement this fairing/spoiler that you're even running an extra parachute that isn't even required for the speeds you run just so you can fair it in to complete your spoiler. Let me guess - more safety?
For the record, I personally think it's an absolute abomination what some RMR guys have been allowed to get away with. IMO RMR's are the scurge of the roadster class. I actually personally don't care about RMR's. They can all go race each other in their pseudo-laksters with roadster quarters panels and I'll stick with real roadsters. Now don't get me wrong - some RMR's are more legit than others but there's simply too many that are so far out to lunch that it's not even worth caring about any more.
But it's nice to see a passionate and active conversation on the forum again. :-D
-
Tell us how you really feel Nathan......LOL.......As I said earlier I won't be the one to protest but thinking about submitting a rule change to make the "spirit of the rule" the rule
Hey Nathan, what side of the RMR fence do you put me on :-D
-
Watch it---the fence may be topped with Containa Wire :-D
-
ahh the "traditional roadster" snobbery raises its head!! I know I am in your abomination group my car was pretty extreme. (Now I am not offended by this so hopefully you will not be offended by my reply all in fun and the spirit of conversation). I still don't really understand this attitude towards the rmrs. Modified and rear modified have the same rules. The rear is going to look different because of the driver position. If I were to build one of each they would look nearly identical except for the drivers head so.... how do you explain that? I never got to run my roadster to its potential since it got rained out two years in a row then I sold it, kinda dissapointed in that. I had big hopes for it on the salt. I went 290 its first year at the 3.5 before losing a lifter. Even though the record in the book says 212 that was at the 2 and on a licensing run to qualify.
You guys that are so down on the class need to think about it from a different perspective. As a newbie I don't have a history or extensive experience with running different classes. I didn't know any of the politics behind any of it. So as a newbie I came in, looked for a class that would be a good fit, and built a car. Now here I was proud for building a car that I thought was really cutting edge as slippery as could make it within the rules and then I get bashed for having a car that isn't roadstery enough? The entire class is an odd duck so?? My first trip to bville I saw a rmr and thought it was the ugliest thing and who would build for that class? Well guess what it was a great starter class and a good fit for my transaxle/engine combo I had. I can tell you first hand it sucks to want to get into LSR and then feel like a stepchild because of the car you show up with. Would I have more street cred if I had made myself sticking up an extra two feet and made an aero ugly car?
As a side note I can tell you that no matter what you do a roadster can still spin if you get to aggressive with your weight bias and right foot. But thats another story.
Now you have to bash my comp coupe wing also.... Man I am really getting a thrashing. The rules let me do it and I saw an advantage in doing it for that particular car. I didn't petition for the rule change. When I was ready to build a coupe it was allowed. Is there anything wrong with that?
And I think you would agree Nathan, sending in pictures and at least getting some thumbs up on the actual car before hand can't hurt. It may not be the end all of approvals but at least its something.
-
Many years ago a very well known, deceased racer, teamed with a friend of mine and set a record. The record was taken away because they had three chute packs on the deck lid and it was considered an aerodynamic advantage.
Ron
-
I just do not understand all the hype about records and protests. The only "record" that really matters is: Was this run of my car faster than the last run of my car?
-
There's a class for that -- it's called Time Only.
Most humans enjoy a little recognition for their efforts. Having your name in the Rule Book for a year can be satisfying.
-
How satisfying?. I can only dream. :-P
-
And this is why I have a Streamliner..... :cheers:
-
lol
-
My streamliner ran in the RMR class . . .
Willi
Kraut Bros.
-
My streamliner ran in the RMR class . . .
Willi
Kraut Bros.
:roll: :-D
JL222
-
There's a class for that -- it's called Time Only.
Most humans enjoy a little recognition for their efforts. Having your name in the Rule Book for a year can be satisfying.
If they get the name right when its being put in the book!
-
I don't think that a different engine should "legalize" a competitor in the Category one competes in.
Well said Stan.
" when did it become rude to question someone instead of it being rude for them to cheat?" .......Yes, and deciding to protest a fellow competitor is not an easy desision. Some of you know I did this years ago to a "famous" competitor, got villified on his website forum, and was the all around A$$hole and bad guy for doing nothing wrong. For this reason I will probably never protest again.
PS. I won the protest
Always protest if you have a valid reason.
For the record, I personally think it's an absolute abomination what some RMR guys have been allowed to get away with. IMO RMR's are the scurge of the roadster class. I actually personally don't care about RMR's. They can all go race each other in their pseudo-laksters with roadster quarters panels and I'll stick with real roadsters. Now don't get me wrong - some RMR's are more legit than others but there's simply too many that are so far out to lunch that it's not even worth caring about any more.
But it's nice to see a passionate and active conversation on the forum again. :-D
I agree. Just like NHRA Funny Cars, don't look like anything you can buy at a car dealer.
I just dug out my 1986 Rule Book, not counting the front and rear cover, has a total of 80 pages.
The new 2017 Rule Book, not counting the front or rear cover, has a total of 264 pages. Just comparing.
I am waiting for the vintage/vintage Roadster Classes. Where I can run a VH engine class motor. VH = Early Hemi 1958 and before. Ha Ha Ha, it will never happen.
Tom G.
-
What about Compressed Air class - C/AIR. A displacement change can make for a maybe competitive non-Chevy powered roadster.
DW
-
Yeah!!! That vintage C/AIR has been a rousing success.
Who in the flock thought of that!
It's great seeing those nailheads, Y-blocks, early Oldses, Packards, Cadillacs, Lincolns, DeSotos, Studies, & AMCs showing up!
It's only coincidental that not one of them has ever shown up!
-
Nor has an International like Archie's.
-
For the record, I personally think it's an absolute abomination what some RMR guys have been allowed to get away with.
[/quote]
I agree. Just like NHRA Funny Cars, don't look like anything you can buy at a car dealer.
[/quote]
Looking at the roadster in your pic it looks every bit as much like a lakester as any RMR. Are you the kettle or the pot?
-
Couple of comments
Stan,
Because there is a lack of C/AIR entries does not mean they are not being built. The class originator claims there are thousands of roadsters that will soon be competitive. As you know building takes time I know one gentleman with 17+ years of fab time spent.
I formally nominate Eddie Umland for Roadster Committee Chairperson An intelligent, level headed and well spoken racer who can help the sport No lol here, I am serious.
DW
-
I'll second Ed's nomination, Dan.
Willi
Kraut Bros.
-
Couple of comments
Stan,
Because there is a lack of C/AIR entries does not mean they are not being built. The class originator claims there are thousands of roadsters that will soon be competitive. As you know building takes time I know one gentleman with 17+ years of fab time spent.
I formally nominate Eddie Umland for Roadster Committee Chairperson An intelligent, level headed and well spoken racer who can help the sport No lol here, I am serious.
DW
I WON'T LAST 17 YEARS!!!! :cheers:
-
"The class originator claims there are thousands of roadsters that will soon be competitive."
I think he insinuated that they were waiting at the gate back then. I always thought the gate was open. There was no reason they couldn't enter then, except for those that had out-dated roadsters, safety-wise.
In 2006 there were 9 C/Gas Roadsters pre-entered at Bonneville. I guess to keep at least 8 of them happy, the SCTA should have split the class between dark and light colors or cam manufacturers or just give participation trophies just to not hurt anyone's feelings. (Wait, they sorta do that any way, don't they?)
Stan
-
Right Stan....... That's where the REMR class came from!! :dhorse:
-
Actually Mike, the class was born from the fertile mind of the late Ron Benham After a few years of back and forth I lost that battle and now we see what the class has mutated to Darn Ron passed away too soon to see what he had brought forth.
DW
-
Well if we are going to have class consolidation I prefer to not contaminate Special Construction by bringing in Mod Roadsters.
It makes a lot more sense to just have a Mod Roadster class--- you choose to put the driver and eng where ever you want to between the axles---that way there will be enough protests to keep everybody in line
-
"I formally nominate Eddie Umland for Roadster Committee Chairperson An intelligent, level headed and well spoken racer who can help the sport No lol here, I am serious.
DW"
:cheers: :cheers: :cheers:
But he could use a hair cut :evil: :-D
-
I'm with Dan, Willi, and Brian. He needs to be on the Committee. Enough said, I don't need to get buried in politics (man, I miss Tony P. on here).
vic
-
The only thing I am qualified to do is stir the pot! I only think I know the RMR records since I have now built 2 well 3 if you include Cole Cutlers Chassis, but I only did the frame on that car.
-
I'm the official pot-stirrer, no matter the roadster class! I've worked hard at it and don't kneed (sp-ok) some long-haired, Northern California liberal, who "knows the record" (but does he know the rules?) newbie trying to take the chair. Apparently he got scared about RMRs and went and built a streamliner. How can the roadster guys trust a guy like that!
Stan
-
Actually Mike, the class was born from the fertile mind of the late Ron Benham After a few years of back and forth I lost that battle and now we see what the class has mutated to Darn Ron passed away too soon to see what he had brought forth.
DW
Oh, I remember where REMR came from, just like AIR, It came from a need for more chances to set a record or win El Mirage championships.
We have enough classes!!!
Should we talk about "M" at El Mirage? :dhorse: :dhorse: :dhorse:
-
All this REMR bashing I'm starting to get a complex :-D
-
I was bashing Comp coupes today also... maybe I should start a new thread.
-
Oh - Comp Coupes
Ron had an answer for that one too. Super Coupe - anything goes. Let your imagination wander.
How about one class, anything, wide open, fastest wins. One trophy available.
DW
-
Yeah -- kinda like the class Ed Shadle and Richard Noble and Roscoe and those guys are in. One class, anything goes, one trophy.
-
I missed class consolidation as Sparky mentions at the top of this page. I can tell you that when REMR class was discussed I asked if consolidation was an option. OMG - the out cry from the standard mod roadster guys was a +11 on the volume knob. The perceived problem was that all mod roadster records would fall to the rear engine guys. A quick scan of the rule book shows this to be false. In fact, some mod roadster records are held by high boy roadsters in comparative classes.
Go figure. You guys are on your own now, I agree with flowbench - too many classes. If you need a record or points championship build to the existing rules, don't lobby for a new class. Fuel pickup trucks - blah.
DW
-
xx/CFC, xx/CBFC
-
Dodge, this argument... er discussion has been great to follow and as a friendly reminder (as I often do) to support This site with cash!
For any of You newbies following this thread, Jon Amo founded this site about 15 (?) years ago as a place to discuss Rules, Racing, and Everything right and wrong about LSR... at least in the eyes of any and all beholders. After way too many of Us "cocktail posters" and one Ratliff started raising hell and discontent Jon took a well deserved time out (and so did this Site).
Enter one Seldom Seen Slim (King of the Porta-Potties) who apparently was sick and tired of killing mosquito's (?) in Northern Michigan and whose wonderfull Wife was tired of His constant pawing around the place (if You get My drift...).
The result Has given All of Us a well needed Arena to discuss everything LSR. Before this site was born there was literally No way to find out fact's or rumors or rule changes until the New Rule Books arrived... unless You belonged to a SCTA member Club or knew someone "in the know".
As long as all of Us are respectful to each other this Site will continue to flourish and keep valid discussion alive.
"One Run" Bob Drury
p.s. and once again a special salute to the man who loves to confuse us with "the" Rule Book and whom is the only SCTA official to have (for better or worse) listened to all of Our whining and bitching and tried His best to answer any and all questions. Hats off to Dan Warner!
-
A super couple class is exactly what I needed when I first was looking for something to build. Because I wanted to use a transaxle it limited my options. But we do have an option for no rules fastest wins, its basically the Hot Rod trophy. Fastest single pass of the week regardless of class or lack of class as is fitting to some.
I can't see any inherent advantage in rear or front modified roadster, but that ship has sailed. The rear modifieds will continue to bump their records. as we all know it does take time to build and then dial in a car to its true potential. It will take a few years, but it has been a great for new blood to start.
I am just going to build bikes from now on talk about too many classes.
To keep the rules/aero discussion alive.. If you can't tape door gaps how can you have a fiberglass repop without any door or window gaps? Coupe or roadster for that matter. There are 3 or 4 Topolino type coupes which are all repop drag racing bodies with no gaps, no door handle recesses etc. None of the characteristics that would be on an "exact replica".. I could go all day with this.
-
What about Compressed Air class - C/AIR. A displacement change can make for a maybe competitive non-Chevy powered roadster.
DW
As I recall a rule change was submitted to expand the class a couple of engine sizes, but did not pass. I am fine with the way it is.
For the record, I personally think it's an absolute abomination what some RMR guys have been allowed to get away with.
I agree. Just like NHRA Funny Cars, don't look like anything you can buy at a car dealer.
Looking at the roadster in your pic it looks every bit as much like a lakester as any RMR. Are you the kettle or the pot?
I was not referring to the length of the cars, I am talking about the actual body. Some, not all of the REMR's, put so many add ons to the original body that you cannot tell it is a roadster body. That is where the 65% rule came from. IMO it is a case of pushing the limit way to far.
The modified roadster you see in my avatar was built over 20 years ago and I guarantee you can tell it is a 27 ford T body from the firewall back. The car was built by Mel Swain who builds cars for a living and this was his personal car.
I missed class consolidation as Sparky mentions at the top of this page. I can tell you that when REMR class was discussed I asked if consolidation was an option. OMG - the out cry from the standard mod roadster guys was a +11 on the volume knob. The perceived problem was that all mod roadster records would fall to the rear engine guys. A quick scan of the rule book shows this to be false. In fact, some mod roadster records are held by high boy roadsters in comparative classes.
Go figure. You guys are on your own now, I agree with flowbench - too many classes. If you need a record or points championship build to the existing rules, don't lobby for a new class. Fuel pickup trucks - blah.
DW
I am not in favor of combining classes. IMO REMR's do have an advantage, but that is for another topic.
I agree we have enough classes, we don't need anymore or any less, the classes should be frozen in place. But with human nature the way it is there will always be controversy and opinions on how many classes we have and how many we need.
Tom G.
-
ORB said: "...Jon Amo founded this site about 15 (?) years ago..."
I bought it in '08, and I do believe it was in '96 that Jon got it up and running. Geez -- two decades plus and it's still managing to stir the pot and give out some entertainment. Cool o matic.
Thanks for the Plug, Bob. :cheers:
-
I think with the rules for the modified/rear modifieds both have the opportunity to push the envelope as some of you consider it. I consider it a natural progression of the classes. As records become more difficult people will chase that aero. There are classes for the purists, the modified classes shouldn't be so uptight (not advocating more leeway here just let people work within the rules). I honestly think its pretty clear that some of you are just hung up on the fact that the class exists at all so regardless of what they look like there would still be a problem. I do not believe in making classes so that everyone can have a record with whatever they happen to have in the garage. However from a long term point of view. Some class changes etc help get fresh blood in and some changes are vital to keep the sport alive.
So now how bout all those roadsters with no door gaps etc? I knew I was going to push the limits so I used an original steel body with the cowl etc intact so there was no room to complain at least about that part.
-
"If you need a record (. . .) build to the existing rules, don't lobby for a new class."
"I am just going to build bikes from now on – talk about too many classes."
For someone who desires a Bonneville record, the motorcycles are the way to go. Hundreds of Open records. No Hans device, no roll cage, no fire systems, just two (or three) tires, only a few cylinders, walking speed's probably okay. Gotta go two miles. No trailer needed. Same certificate -- maybe with only two (or less) significant digits.
Only downside is most of us car guys know and respect the hard runners – including the one that told me he "went thru the four", and I replied, "of course, we're out at the six and a quarter" and he retorted, "no, I went THRU the four."
-
As an outsider I thought about how cool it would be to get a record. Once you get involved you quickly realize that all records are not created nor earned equally. (see thread about buying a ride) I am still dissappointed that my first record was not up where I could feel a little more proud of it. Now for somebody just looking for a bucketlist thing they can talk about to people who don't know any better a 50 mph record may be just fine. But yah we all know who the hard chargers are and when something impressive happens.
But lets face it most of the big numbers are put up by a very small group of people. Not for lack of effort but its just not that.
I may someday build a bike since I have been a bike guy all my life as well as the cars. It certainly would be easier (to build), cheaper, smaller,... and on on on
-
So much discussion about the RMR class. The haters seem to forget one thing.
If memory servers me correctly rear engine roadsters existed a very long time ago pretty much from the beginning of this salt flats and lakes racing stuff way back in 1949 or so. Stan Back would know for sure. So there's really nothing new just a previous class that's been revived with a whole lot of improved safety and the freedom to build within the rules and ones ingenuity. :cheers:
-
They just "hate us cuz they ain't us" hehehe :cheers:
-
Stan, wuz it the 4 that I went through? Or maybe the 3 3/4 marker. Or was it someone else?
-
Joe Amo
-
To expand on Ron's statement that REMR have been on the salt from the beginning. Ron Benham used that argument as a basis for his lobby for the new(revised class). I said sure no problem. Lets make them 90" wheelbase, swing axle rear end, etc., just like the old days. OH no!! those cars were unsafe, that is why the SCTA banned the configuration he answered. Duh, I replied. Much argument, petitions and finger pointing resulted in what we have now.
I have some history for Brian as to why we no longer have a FC class(and why restrict it to CFC). We really do have FC just known by another name. This has been discussed before, Nathan Stewart has offered input on the subject.
Thanks for the shout out Bob, I really do have a love for the sport and the people involved.
DW
-
Thanks for everything you do, Dan. It is very much appreciated even if we don't say it much.
Ron
-
Thanks Ron,
Looking forward to our next talk.
DW
-
A bit of history...
Vintage 50's REMR
Ron Benham built REMR (he's the guy that pushed the SCTA to adopt the class)
Todays REMR
I have no heart burn over pushing the rules, that's what it's all about. But when you guys ask "why do we call 'em lakesters" this might help.
Hold on as I gather a few Modified Roadsters....
-
Looking at the pictures, I kind of think Jack might have pushed the rules about as far as you can go with his 1925.....just my opinion.
-
In My mind (or whats left of it) I applaud Eddie for addressing the issue in this open forum. I am sure this issue is not sitting well with a whole bunch of REMR owners who would like to see it go away but in truth and with this being a whole new classification there are always going to be "growing pains". That's the nature of any kind of Motor Racing.
Smokey Yunick made a career out of what most would call "cheating" but most of His good ideas became legal and helped to propel NASCAR into what it is Today.
I applaud what the vehicle in question's owner and builders have done especially with what they percieve as researched and documented approval.
As was stated in a earlier post, vehicle inspectors are not trained to tell You if Your vehicle is legal or not, rather to make sure that Your entry and Safety Equipment are up to snuff and trying to save Your sorry Acura in the worst case scenario.
I feel that all owners of REMR's should contact Mike Manghelli the Car Rules Committee Chair to gather the Troops including Russ Eyres and any other Committee Contacts to issue a clarification ASAP.
As much as I feel sorry for any entrants who may in fact now have non-legal cars which as a result may face a lot of time, effort, and money, it is in My mind the correct and only thing to do.
As We are closing in on Speedweek I would urge all REMR owners with a Bonneville Speedweek entry to plan on racing as intended. If their vehicles qualify for a record they should go after it. And if they set the record, and the record is not allowed or is protested, KNOW before hand that there is a very strong possibility that it may be rescinded later.
As much as that sucks it is part of building a car that is a hybrid and allows more discretion in construction of the chassis and body. The Rule Book can only do so much.
It is up to the owner/builder to make sure in reading the rules that class rules, engineering rules, safety rules and yes, even participant rules do not conflict with each other.
Our Rule Makers are volunteers who bust their asses trying to Make sure that every thing is hunky dorry but they are not clairvoyants.
Eddie did the right thing in bringing this subject up at this time. Lets get this straightened out before it gets any worse.
Sincerely yours,
Bob Drury
Old Stud Racing
A/CFA #394
-
I’m thrilled people are just contributing to the discussion and bringing life to the forum. I’m as guilty as anybody for not posting more, but my excuse is it’s a lot of work keeping a traditional roadster going straight, sometimes.
So here goes; I like the REMR class and I think it has a bright future. And the younger racers I talk to almost universally acknowledge this class as their favorite, and that’s good. Sometimes you just have to accept what others like as the new mainstream. I have a traditional roadster that I’m proud of, but building it was a personal choice. If building fast cars was easy everybody would do it, so my hats off to anybody who builds in special construction.
Skip Pipes
-
Just a clarification -- REMRs are not in the Special Construction category, they're in the Vintage category. Some feel that there's not enuf "Vint" in their age.
-
hmmm- a slight understatement --I suspect Sir!
-
Jim - yes Special Construction misstated; I have Lakester fever.
Skip Pipes
-
While I remain an outsider, I have truly grown to love this sport! 8 seasons observing, researching, saving, reading, studying and picking the brain of more than one of the current racers has finally brought me into my building of a RMR. This is my first race build and I am building 100% within the rules. I carry a rule book in my truck, at work, in my office and everywhere in between. I hope to honor both this sport and those within it who have helped me by building within the rules and developing into a true competitor. Oops, almost forgot that I am also hoping to be very competitive within my class. One of the most attractive things about this sport to me is the willingness of it's participants to be involved, passionate, and helpful to one another and newbies. Thanks Eddie and Skip!
-
JK;
Why do you consider yourself an "outsider"?
Regards, Neil Tucson, AZ
-
Spot on Neil.
-
I consider myself an outsider and will continue to do so until I am an active participant in this sport. To date my only contribution has been to help sweep the track at the end of the day at El Mirage. Becoming a part of the group in my mind must be earned through research, hard work, drive, participation and paying my dues to those who came before me and struggled to maintain and grow this sport. With luck, I will some day repay the efforts of those people helping and mentoring me. This process has been eye opening to me in a lot of ways. I must admit, I am loving the process and can't wait to join you other racers at the racers briefing... That said, I am and will continue to build within the rules to EARN a competitive spot!
See you guys next May...