Landracing Forum
Bonneville Salt Flats Discussion => SCTA Rule Questions => Topic started by: 4-barrel Mike on December 17, 2006, 11:11:45 AM
-
Page 15, vintage engine restrictions will now read (I think):
1. No turbochargers are permitted. //2006
2. Computers are allowed for data collection purposes only. //2006
3. Electronic Fuel Injection prohibited. //new
4. Any ignition system may be used. //new
Does number 4 completely override number 2? I.e., MSD (and other) ignition boxes with "programmable" timing are legal?
Thanks.
Mike
-
How does "programable timing" fit into data collection?
DW
-
Mike; It is my understanding that turbochargers are allowed on vintage engines as long as they are in non-vintage bodies. As a turbocharged 270 GMC would be legal in a Vega running XO/BGAlt but not legal in a '32 Ford running in XXO/VGAlt. Believe me, I have had some experiance interpiting these rules.
-
Not trying to be a smart ass honestly, but some traction control devices could be considered programable timing, and they are legal across the board since they cannot be detected. So what would really be the difference?
Tom G.
-
Not trying to follow in Toms footsteps but if a "vintage engine" needs traction control, go for it. It will just make the parts more vintage.
-
How does "programable timing" fit into data collection?
DW
I apologize if I'm coming across the wrong way, but, being new to this phase of automobiles, I see a conflict with #2 & #4: how can you allow "any ignition system", when many use microprocessors, but also say "computers are alllowed for data collection purposes only"?
Rich: I was lazy (left out the vintage bodies part).
I also left out traction control, which is way beyond my experience or needs, but isn't it also allowed and usually computer controlled?
Mike
-
How does "programable timing" fit into data collection?
DW
I also left out traction control, which is way beyond my experience or needs, but isn't it also allowed and usually computer controlled?
Mike
Mike,
From what I have read you don't need a computer for traction control. Some companys are able to do it right off the MSD units. Some even have remote units that are smaller than a cigarette lighter that the drivers hide on themselves and it talks to the Ignition box some how. These units both retard the spark. So my point was if these units are allowed, now that traction control is legal, why not allow programable ignition, since in a sense that is what the traction control units I have describe are doing. Like I said I am not trying to be a smart ass, but how can you allow one and not allow the other.
Tom G.
-
For some reason I am still stuck on the "download" part of 2.R
DW
-
turbos have been around since 1910 or so..
an MSD digital 7 and an Electro-motive are 'any ignition systems' or are they?
transistors used for the switching are a much more modern device than turbos are. 1950's stuff.
I have no dog in this one but thought a little historical perspective might be interesting.
Dave
-
Looooong way from getting into one of these classes [still have a few flatmotor breathing ideas to try out if we ever get a couple of other projects running].
How do you determine/enforce the difference between an ignition box, a "management computer", and "download only" components? Starting to look like the Vintage classes will have to be opened up a bit [much as I hate to see the original vintage intent diluted] as a matter of practicality [tech/impound inspectors shouldn't have to go nuts on a volunteer job takeing any increased static]. Way I justify it in my mind is it's just one more payment in the price of progress, makes all the older records more meaningfull whether they survive into new books or not.
-
"Starting to look like the Vintage classes will have to be opened up a bit [much as I hate to see the original vintage intent diluted] "
How about making it simpler - do the opposite of the above quote.
DW
-
On my V4 and the GMC engines I have run, I managed to stay away from ignition controversy by using Points and condenser type ignition or a Vertex. Just like the old days. Sort of Vintage I thought. I see no reason why this cannot be the rule for these motors. Easy to inspect.
-
On my V4 and the GMC engines I have run, I managed to stay away from ignition controversy by using Points and condenser type ignition or a Vertex. Just like the old days. Sort of Vintage I thought. I see no reason why this cannot be the rule for these motors. Easy to inspect.
This has been my intent to some extent. However, after purchasing a "good" Scintilla/Vertex, sending it to Joe Hunt for rebuild & being told that rebuild cost would be more than the cost for a new one (way over budget either way), I may end up with a points distributor and an MSD 6AL (legal, right?) or similar, which is what I'm running on the street.
I am curious, though: what is the intent of the "any ignition system" rules change?
Mike
-
I don't know about why the rules got changed. Someone who has the ear of the rules makers wanted them changed, I guess. When I had the 2000 Pinto in my roadster, it would run around 8000 rpm with the stock distributer. When I put the Lotus 907 in it it would run faster with a simular distributer. Had to be around 8600 out the end to go 142. So I knew it would be plenty good enough for my '32 Plymouth. When I went to the flathead version of the Ply. I wanted to make the twin ignition deal. No real plan, just wanted to. But it could be phased to fire an eight cylinder motor just fine and each coil would think it was seeing a four cylinder. Spalding Flame Thrower duel coil type deal. I had a MSD on the 460 in my Vega once and it failed at Bonneville. So I bought a stock replacement coil in Wendover and converted back to stock. Went 197.975 with a single four barrel. Decided I didn't need MSD
-
I'll agree that this was not one of my favorite rules for 2007. I think the best place to get an answer is from the Vintage Category chairpersons. I understand that all the different committees were polled and the resulting new rules are the outcome of that poll.
DW
-
Thank you. I think that for the moment I'll plan on following the Rich Fox example/advise & KISS.
Mike
-
"Starting to look like the Vintage classes will have to be opened up a bit [much as I hate to see the original vintage intent diluted] "
How about making it simpler - do the opposite of the above quote.
DW
I have no problem with that approach either, sometimes you just gotta back up to get a good start on the hill. After safety,most important things for rules for any class are having the lines clearly drawn upfront and maintaing control of the length of the everpresent shadow.
Ed
-
So, are the programable MSD's. like the MSD 7535, allowed in the XXO/BVG, or not?
-
Back in law school, my professor said, "look for the intent". I BELIEVE the intent of the rule is to allow ignition controllers, of any kind, BUT, they should only control ignition. Also the original post was in 2006 when traction control was a hot topic. Most all OEM computers control fuel injection and ignition, together. I believe the rule was to keep fuel delivery 'vintage'. It is my belief that your MSD should be legal, but,,,,,,,,, you are best to contact the rule chair. Back in 06 I think that was Roy, and his e-mail address should be in the rule book.
Good luck, RICK
ps, I dropped out of law school to build hot rods,,,,, no regrets!
-
As I understand it, and I've run vintage engines in vintage cars since 1975, you can run any ignition that does what ever function you DIRECT at a set RPM. The engine can not change its setting by something in the engine other than at a set RPM. IE spark knock, wheel spin, (unless the RPM goes to a number that is preset in the "box"), EGT temp etc.
When I ran nitrous I could NOT have the spark retard by a "box" when I hit the button. I still belive by these rules. I could have had a cable you can adjust while driving.
I believe that you can use a MSD, Electromotive, Mallory, ETC or one like it that does things you direct it to prior to the run and that you can change it but not on the fly.
IMO I believe this should stay this way. If you want all the new gadgets, run them in a later model vehicle or in Special Construction. There are those that are problbly already doing "questionable" stuff with vintage engines in vintage cars and either have not been caught or not gone fast yet.
Let's keep some sanity with the these engines and classes.................JD
-
JD, right on. :cheers:
-
Thank you. It is a blown carb engine, and I simply want the box to control timing with the changes in boost. As I understand it, as long as it is preprogrammed for the set points, it is legal.
This is my first go around, and I don't want any surprises during tech!
-
So lets see.
Is it LEGAL In XX0 or X0 or XF in VINTAGE bodies to run a micro processor controlled spark, ie. MSD, Electromotive, etc. as long as the microprocessor does not recieve any other imputs from the engine, other than a RPM signal?
Are we to belive that we cannot even have a vacuum line hooked up to a conputer controlled ignition box?
-
"Are we to belive that we cannot even have a vacuum line hooked up to a computer controlled ignition box?"
The way I read 2.A.1 -- page 17
"2. Computers are allowed for data collection purposes only."
No. But I don't count - and the rule seems clear to me.
Stan
-
See what a mess this is? The old rule that disallowed computer controlled ignitions was easy to understand, enforce, and provided workable results. As Dave pointed out, years ago, Turbochargers are much more legitimate in Vintage classes than computer chips. This rule should never have been changed and should be changed back. What was the good side for the change?
-
So lets see.
Is it LEGAL In XX0 or X0 or XF in VINTAGE bodies to run a micro processor controlled spark, ie. MSD, Electromotive, etc. as long as the microprocessor does not recieve any other imputs from the engine, other than a RPM signal?
Are we to belive that we cannot even have a vacuum line hooked up to a conputer controlled ignition box?
If I'm reading it right, the rule says the only time a computer is allowed on a vintage body car with a vintage engine is to passively collect data. This would lead me to believe that a microprocessor (computer) controlled ignition system is ILLEGAL by default even if you're not using the processor to manipulate ignition timing based on engine load.
The MSD BTM is not microprocessor controlled so I don't think it can be considered a computer which should make it legal to use as it falls under any ignition system while also meeting the no computer rule.
-
38Flattie. As I originally understood it; what was controlled manually was all you could control electronically. IE centrifual weights or set RPM which you could pull or push on a manual lever.
To me changing ignition it at different boost may bring questions but perhaps you can ask all of the current blown vintage engine in vintage classes record holders are doing now and you may find some who are doing questionable things...who knows.
The easiest thing I ever did was run 75% in the tank naturally aspirated and lock in the mag at 38 degrees. Now I run a stock HEI and everything is fine....But I don't run a blower..........Good Luck
-
Wow, and I thought it was a pretty sraight forward question! :-D
I'll send it of to the tech boys, and see what they say.
-
The solution is simple.
Everyone in Warnerville should be trained to be able to verify the exact functioning of the "black box" connected to this current record-holding distributorless-ignition system equipped V4F.
(http://image.hotrod.com/f/14876015+w750+st0/hrdp_0903_02_z+1928_dodge_bros_victory_six_roadster+motor.jpg)
:mrgreen:
Mike
-
The official answer is no.
-
I'm not sure at what point I would consider an HEI distributor to be a computer. Is HEI allowed in vintage?
The 'module' under the cap has some kind of 'micro-processor', although I wouldn't exactly call it a computer.
38flattie, Who was the official that said NO???
4-barrel, That is definitely an DIS, not a stand alone, has an external input to a complex controller etc., and its allowed???
I feel that your answers are conflicting. What is the real truth?
Now I need help, RICK
-
I don't know. I raised the original question and it still hasn't been answered, at least publicly.
38flattie: could you cut and paste your question and the answer into this thread?
Mike
-
I too would like to know who the official is that answered the question. It didn't come to me until after the no was given.
DW
-
Gents, it seems I may have mispoke. Seems that one of the gents that I thought be should be asking, and that gave me that answer, is not the proper source.
DW tells me it CAN be used
Sorry about that!
-
38 Flattie,
Was the person you asked an SCTA official or not? That way you don't have to reveal their identity.
Tom G.
-
Gents, it seems I may have mispoke. Seems that one of the gents that I thought be should be asking, and that gave me that answer, is not the proper source.
DW tells me it CAN be used
Sorry about that!
So! The answer is, yes, programmable ignitions (with boost retard) such as the MSD 7535 http://www.msdignition.com/product.aspx?id=5853&terms=7535 (http://www.msdignition.com/product.aspx?id=5853&terms=7535) are legal. Is that correct?
Mike
-
I sent the question off to three people that I thought were officials, based on names given to me by a member and friend. DW was one of them. After I read Dw's response, and looked up the officials, I realized that he was not.
My mistake, and I apologize for confusion.
-
4-barrel Mike, looks like you posted while I was.
DW IS an official, correct? He tells me yes.
-
Yes, Dan Warner is an official. :-D
Mike
-
Well, I can't be to sure now, can I? :wink:
He did say this: Be sure that you have the presets locked as JD Tone mentioned in his reply.
-
I have been running a stand alone HEI in my GMC for at least 15 years. It has a power wire, tach wire, and a built in coil . There are centrifugal weights and an after market module and has never been questioned in impounds. I hope this helps.........JD
-
I don't know whether to laugh or puke.
-
Gents, it seems I may have mispoke. Seems that one of the gents that I thought be should be asking, and that gave me that answer, is not the proper source.
DW tells me it CAN be used
Sorry about that!
So! The answer is, yes, programmable ignitions (with boost retard) such as the MSD 7535 http://www.msdignition.com/product.aspx?id=5853&terms=7535 (http://www.msdignition.com/product.aspx?id=5853&terms=7535) are legal. Is that correct?
Mike
That sure looks like a computer controlled ignition system to me considering you use PC software to program it.
-
Sigh. It also fits "4....any ignition." See the original question.
Mike
-
This is just like traction control, next to impossible to police. Just curious how are the high-end data loggers that have the ignition capabilities going to be checked? Or better yet, how do you police ignition systems with traction control? They surly have a processor for controlling the ignition. According to the rule book its legal across the board. Tony
-
SCTA board meeting this Friday night. This question "might" make for good cannon fodder. :evil:
-
Sigh. It also fits "4....any ignition." See the original question.
Mike
Well now you have a computer controlling your ignition so you're half way to having a stand alone engine management system. Might as well allow EFI. Doesn't the first line of the paragraph describing the limitation of vintage engines in vintage bodies mention something about historical authenticity?
-
Yes Nathan. But that has been superceded by those that made the "any ignition" rule and now have allowed extensive block modifications.
DW
-
Sigh. It also fits "4....any ignition." See the original question.
Mike
Well now you have a computer controlling your ignition so you're half way to having a stand alone engine management system. Might as well allow EFI. Doesn't the first line of the paragraph describing the limitation of vintage engines in vintage bodies mention something about historical authenticity?
I would say that "historical authenticity" is long gone:
Engine/drivetrain:
1. Modern-style rollcage required
2. Modern fire suppression required
3. Full modern driver protection required
4. Modern wheels required
5. Flywheel ballistic blanket allowed
6. Modern carburetion (i.e. circle track Holley's, dual side-draft Webers) allowed.
7. Modern clutches and transmissions not dis-allowed.
8. Multi-piece CNC milled heads not dis-allowed.
9. Modern alloy pistons used.
10. Billet connecting rods used.
11. Modern rear ends used.
12. Modern tires (generally) used.
13. Modern Joe Hunt (type) magnetos used.
Vintage Bodies:
Please explain to me how one-piece plastic roadster bodies, no non-aero body gaps anywhere, without opening doors, hinges, cowl vents, etc. meet the spirit or letter of "exact replica".
This is off of the top of my head. I'm sure I've left a lot out. Using a modern ignition will allow builders to build more reliable and (ultimately) cheaper vintage engines while harming "authenticity" less than any of the above cited examples of non-authenticity.
Very respectfully,
Mike
-
I guess there are two ways to read the rule then. One way says that the no computers rule trumps the any ignition system rule and the other way says that the any ignition system rule, including ones that use computers, trumps the no computers rule.
The way the I read the new vintage engine rules leads me to believe that we've put a limitation on extensive block modifications.
-
Ok so it was mentioned that that any ignition system can be used as long as it does not controll any more parameters then the original one did.
So...
Orignial ignition had a pre-set ignition curve controlled by TWO varibles:
Vacuum advance, via a vacuum line conected to the dizzy from the intake,
As well as Centrifigul weights, which varied by RPM.
So A Crank controlled ignition can be used, and the ignition "box" can have two imputs, just like the orignial dizzy did, therefore a RPM signal from the crank angle sensor, as well as a line from the intake manifold, correct?
That is how I read it, but again, alot for interpitation.
-
The solution is simple.
Everyone in Warnerville should be trained to be able to verify the exact functioning of the "black box" connected to this current record-holding distributorless-ignition system equipped V4F.
(http://image.hotrod.com/f/14876015+w750+st0/hrdp_0903_02_z+1928_dodge_bros_victory_six_roadster+motor.jpg)
:mrgreen:
Mike
There in lies one of the biggest misconceptions in recent SCTA history; the notion that just because one guy did it and they hold a record makes their illegal whatever-it-may-be legal for everyone else despite what the rule book says.
-
I would say that "historical authenticity" is long gone:
Engine/drivetrain:
1. Modern-style rollcage required
2. Modern fire suppression required
3. Full modern driver protection required
4. Modern wheels required
5. Flywheel ballistic blanket allowed
6. Modern carburetion (i.e. circle track Holley's, dual side-draft Webers) allowed.
7. Modern clutches and transmissions not dis-allowed.
8. Multi-piece CNC milled heads not dis-allowed.
9. Modern alloy pistons used.
10. Billet connecting rods used.
11. Modern rear ends used.
12. Modern tires (generally) used.
13. Modern Joe Hunt (type) magnetos used.
Vintage Bodies:
Please explain to me how one-piece plastic roadster bodies, no non-aero body gaps anywhere, without opening doors, hinges, cowl vents, etc. meet the spirit or letter of "exact replica".
This is off of the top of my head. I'm sure I've left a lot out. Using a modern ignition will allow builders to build more reliable and (ultimately) cheaper vintage engines while harming "authenticity" less than any of the above cited examples of non-authenticity.
Very respectfully,
Mike
Mike,
Based on the points you highlighted I would have to whole heartedly disagree with your assesment of the current state of historical authenticity.
First, safety rules, body classification rules, and engine class rules are three separate paradigms that are incommensurable. This topic concerns vintage engines being used purely in vintage bodies. Modern safety equipment has absolutely no relevance to the historical authenticity of the vintage engine class. A vehicles asthetics is well beyond the scope of "historical authenticity" in regards to the vintage engine class. Or, for lack of better words, how the car looks has nothing to do with anything in this discussion. This also goes for plastic replica bodies too.
Also, a quick look through the rule book and I don't see any mention of historical authenticity any where else but in the vintage engine rules. I personally doubt anyone is looking for increased reliability from a modern ignition system. I'd only use one the make more power and go faster.
Isn't "modern carburetion" an oxymoron? :-D
-
Isn't "modern carburetion" an oxymoron? :-D
Only if you’re wearing loose fitting tights eating jumbo shrimp. :-P Tony
-
Mike,
Based on the points you highlighted I would have to whole heartedly disagree with your assesment of the current state of historical authenticity.
First, safety rules, body classification rules, and engine class rules are three separate paradigms that are incommensurable. This topic concerns vintage engines being used purely in vintage bodies. Modern safety equipment has absolutely no relevance to the historical authenticity of the vintage engine class. A vehicles asthetics is well beyond the scope of "historical authenticity" in regards to the vintage engine class. Or, for lack of better words, how the car looks has nothing to do with anything in this discussion. This also goes for plastic replica bodies too.
Also, a quick look through the rule book and I don't see any mention of historical authenticity any where else but in the vintage engine rules. I personally doubt anyone is looking for increased reliability from a modern ignition system. I'd only use one the make more power and go faster.
Isn't "modern carburetion" an oxymoron? :-D
Nathan:
It's obvious we are using words differently. In my limited understanding of the English language, "historic authenticity" MUST include how the vehicle looks.
1. I'm not arguing against anything that I listed, particularly not against safety requirements. I listed them (and I've thought of many things left out) to illustrate the lack of "historic authenticity" (and against your argument that allowing a "modern" igntion would not be historically authentic.)
2. You brought bodies into the discussion, but I went beyond the current arguement.
3. Yes, for vintage engines which are not allowed EFI (and I know pretty much what Pete Richardson paid for his Hilborn mechanical FI - more than I could consider), Holley 500 (350?) CFM racing 2-barrels are modern, at least compared to Strombergs or Winfields. (I use Strombergs, but I bought my collection when they were cheap :mrgreen:)
By my understanding, there is little "historic authenticity" in the engine pictured in this thread. Beyond the block and perhaps the timing cover, I see nothing that is historically authentic. I doubt that you would find much more in a picture of either of Sunday's record setting V4F's. By my definition, a brand-new in the box magneto from Joe Hunt is modern and not vintage or historic. It is no more anachronistic to my eye than the DIS on the Dodge.
When I used the word "reliability", I was using it in a much narrower sense than normal. A Ford V4 with the ignition driven off of the camshaft between two of the three bearings, will NOT fire correctly 100% of the time and the cam is flexing everytime it pushes a valve up, not to mention the inevitable slop in the 1920's design of the gears and the driveshaft. Using a programmable box taking engine position directly from the crankshaft will fire correctly more reliably (closer to 100% of the time). Cost compared to a new magneto is similar. Oh! and it will make a few more horsepower, won't it??
This thread was a request for clarification of the new for 2007 rules for vintage engines. My inquiry was dropped shortly thereafter because there was no clear answer given. After looking at pictures of record-setting cars (and I know that non-conforming cars have had approved records) I thought that the point was moot. Apparently it is not.
However, when you and DW disagree, who gets the last vote? :-D
Mike
-
Mike,
Are your main concerns erratic timing with a stock distributor or mag? If so, can you run the distributor off the front of the cam? Or can you run a belt drive off the crank?
IMO "historical authenticity" is long gone. You can thank some deep pockets for that.
Tom G.
-
Tom:
All that I've wanted all along is a simple and hopefully lasting clarification of the rules that went into effect for 2007, after that I don't know where I'll be going :-)
Seems that a lot of people have a lot of opinions and bring non-germane arguments into the discussion (who, me? :mrgreen:)
Second hand, DW says the stuff is legal, but that aint' straight from the horse's mouth (so to speak) :-D
Mike
-
Nathan:
It's obvious we are using words differently. In my limited understanding of the English language, "historic authenticity" MUST include how the vehicle looks.
1. I'm not arguing against anything that I listed, particularly not against safety requirements. I listed them (and I've thought of many things left out) to illustrate the lack of "historic authenticity" (and against your argument that allowing a "modern" igntion would not be historically authentic.)
2. You brought bodies into the discussion, but I went beyond the current arguement.
3. Yes, for vintage engines which are not allowed EFI (and I know pretty much what Pete Richardson paid for his Hilborn mechanical FI - more than I could consider), Holley 500 (350?) CFM racing 2-barrels are modern, at least compared to Strombergs or Winfields. (I use Strombergs, but I bought my collection when they were cheap :mrgreen:)
By my understanding, there is little "historic authenticity" in the engine pictured in this thread. Beyond the block and perhaps the timing cover, I see nothing that is historically authentic. I doubt that you would find much more in a picture of either of Sunday's record setting V4F's. By my definition, a brand-new in the box magneto from Joe Hunt is modern and not vintage or historic. It is no more anachronistic to my eye than the DIS on the Dodge.
When I used the word "reliability", I was using it in a much narrower sense than normal. A Ford V4 with the ignition driven off of the camshaft between two of the three bearings, will NOT fire correctly 100% of the time and the cam is flexing everytime it pushes a valve up, not to mention the inevitable slop in the 1920's design of the gears and the driveshaft. Using a programmable box taking engine position directly from the crankshaft will fire correctly more reliably (closer to 100% of the time). Cost compared to a new magneto is similar. Oh! and it will make a few more horsepower, won't it??
This thread was a request for clarification of the new for 2007 rules for vintage engines. My inquiry was dropped shortly thereafter because there was no clear answer given. After looking at pictures of record-setting cars (and I know that non-conforming cars have had approved records) I thought that the point was moot. Apparently it is not.
However, when you and DW disagree, who gets the last vote? :-D
Mike
Mike,
I hear what you're saying and you're right... we are using two different languages here. I don't fully know how much you're involved with running a car or if you've even ran before or if you're building a car to run but I think you're seeing things like an outsider looking in and I'm seeing things like an insider looking out. I speak SCTA rule book and those who speak SCTA rule book generally understand what I'm saying. "Historical authenticity" is only applicable to the vintage engines running in the vintage engine class in vintage bodies. You might not agree with my usage of "historical authenticity" but my usage is the same as the SCTA's usage and those are the rules I follow. Personal conjecture has no bearing over the rules that govern the SCTA engine classes.
Anecdotally, I once heard someone say that they didn't agree with the SCTA rules regarding firewalls in roadsters. Well, in all truthfullness, their personal disposition on the matter has no bearing on anything. They can not agree with the rules all they want but the rules are still the rules and they still have to follow them.
So, historical authenticity is only mentioned once in the rule book and where it's mentioned is in the vintage engine section, and the stipulation is that historical authenticity apply to vintage engines in vintage bodies. It doesn't go any further than that.
Again, it seems like your personal definition of what's new and modern and not historical is very different from the SCTA's. It breaks down like this: carbs are old and efi is new, mags and points distributors are old and computer controlled ignition systems are new, mechanical fuel injection is old and efi is new. That's it. It's pretty straight cut. A Stromberg or a Holley or a Winfield are all the same thing. A dual point distributor and a mag are the same thing. Old stuff, new stuff. When you start seeing things this way it all makes sense and things are very very clear.
-
Nathan, Then how do you classify traction control modules with the ignition? They have a processor and are programmable with a computer for wheel slip and can control the ignition. It is conceivable with some work someone can change it do a host of other things on the ignition side. Just curious. Tony
-
Just to wrap this up for myself, I know what the intent of the rule was meant to be and I also know that no computers precludes computer controlled ignition systems. If the rules need to be tightened up and made more obvious, we will submit a rule change to add more words to make it even more clear to everyone that computer controlled anything is ILLEGAL for use on vintage engines in vintage bodies. In the mean time, protests can clear up anything that might be questionable.
-
Mike,
Disclamer, I am not an SCTA official. Reading the rule book, even under the heading of vintage engines in vintage body classes it clearly states 4. Any ignition system may be used.
An ignition system, IMO is not a computer controlled engine management system. Big difference.
But, I will tell you from experience with the vintage engine class, just because the rules read what they do today, does not mean they will not change next year. So if this is a long term project wait until the last minute to buy an ignition system.
Tom G.
PS. If I am incorrect, IMO the wording in the rule book should be changed to say NO ELECTRONIC IGNITIONS, the same way it spells out NO EFI.
-
Just to wrap this up for myself, I know what the intent of the rule was meant to be and I also know that no computers precludes computer controlled ignition systems. If the rules need to be tightened up and made more obvious, we will submit a rule change to add more words to make it even more clear to everyone that computer controlled anything is ILLEGAL for use on vintage engines in vintage bodies. In the mean time, protests can clear up anything that might be questionable.
So traction control in vintage classes is illegal? Tony
-
Just to wrap this up for myself, I know what the intent of the rule was meant to be and I also know that no computers precludes computer controlled ignition systems.
Cool! Please explain the intent of "4. Any ignition SYSTEM..." It seemed like such a simple question in 2006 :mrgreen:
Mike
-
If we are to go striclty by the book, it says,
NO efi
No turbos,
ANY I repeat ANY ign system can be used. Any means any, not some, not most, but ANY. I guess I will build my xx0 pro with a crank trigger per the rules?
-
Tony,
could the TC be done without adding some other sensor or pickup to the ignition?
Just a question, comes from karting ignition systems.
John
-
John,
I don’t know if there is or not, but I was just trying to make a point that a blanket statement of computer controlled anything is illegal is wrong. I have seen vintage class cars with digital dashes that are controlled by the data logger. Does that make them illegal? In fact last year on the salt I saw more than one data logging system on vintage class cars that had telemetry. Conceivably these could be configured to control the ignition remotely from the pits. About 3 years ago I heard the argument from a vintage racer to ban multiple coils. Then I pointed out to him the fact anyone that wanted to run a stock Model T would be out of luck because they had multiple coils from the factory. My point is no mater how the rule is written or will be re written its one of those unenforceable rules. I am not privy to how the any ignition rule came about but my guess is it was just to hard to police. Kind of like the no traction control rule was.
Besides, if the intent is to stop adjustable ignition systems, you don’t need electronics to do it. You could simply run multiple ignition systems or if you had a supercharged car, I would run the Ford Indy Car system from the ‘60’s with the Hilborn boost valve on the fuel tank. Tony
-
If we are to go striclty by the book, it says,
NO efi
No turbos,
ANY I repeat ANY ign system can be used. Any means any, not some, not most, but ANY. I guess I will build my xx0 pro with a crank trigger per the rules?
So long as your DIS doesn't use a computer you'd be fine. Computers can ONLY be used for data recording!
-
However, when you and DW disagree, who gets the last vote?
The board does after the protest is initiated.
-
Nathan, Then how do you classify traction control modules with the ignition? They have a processor and are programmable with a computer for wheel slip and can control the ignition. It is conceivable with some work someone can change it do a host of other things on the ignition side. Just curious. Tony
Computers can be used for data collection only. Nothing that's computer controlled can affect engine operation. Therefore I would think computer controlled traction devices would be illegal for vintage engines in vintage bodies.
-
Mike,
I don't fully know how much you're involved with running a car or if you've even ran before or if you're building a car to run but I think you're seeing things like an outsider looking in and I'm seeing things like an insider looking out.[/quote]
I can't speak for Mike, But I AM am outsider looking in. I'm trying to put my first salt car together, to make my first run. If I can use the controller I will- It has advantages that allow for more HP and efficiency.
I'm asking the same question as Mike, so that I don't waste time and money on something I won't be able to use.
Respectfully, it appears that I'm getting the same answers as Mike- 1)yes you can if it's pre-progammed, and not programmabe on the fly. 2) No you can't, it's a computer.
It seems to me, outsider or not, that this should be a quetion that's easier to get an answer for than it has been.
So again, respectfully,can we get a collective answer?
-
Nathan, Then how do you classify traction control modules with the ignition? They have a processor and are programmable with a computer for wheel slip and can control the ignition. It is conceivable with some work someone can change it do a host of other things on the ignition side. Just curious. Tony
Computers can be used for data collection only. Nothing that's computer controlled can affect engine operation. Therefore I would think computer controlled traction devices would be illegal for vintage engines in vintage bodies.
Nathan, So the way I am interpreting your comment is no traction control in vintage classes. From my basic understanding of traction control, most systems take two wheel speed imputes and calculate the difference in wheel speed and pull cylinders to compensate for lack of traction. Correct me if I am wrong, but this would be illegal. Will the rule be rewritten to reflect that no traction control in vintage classes for next year? I would imagine there would be a slew of vintage cars this year at speed week with traction control. I don’t care where the line is drawn in the sand as long its drawn and there is no selective enforcement. Tony
-
Sorry, double post
-
The ignition system you specifically mentioned uses a microprocessor and is programmed using PC software. So, would you agree with me that by using this exact ignition system a computer is being used to affect engine operation? Assuming you do agree with me, would you always agree with me that the rule book clearly says computers are allowed for data collection only for vintage engines in vintage bodies? Would you agree with me that this would make the computer controlled ignition system you want to run illegal?
-
The ignition system you specifically mentioned uses a microprocessor and is programmed using PC software. So, would you agree with me that by using this exact ignition system a computer is being used to affect engine operation? Assuming you do agree with me, would you always agree with me that the rule book clearly says computers are allowed for data collection only for vintage engines in vintage bodies? Would you agree with me that this would make the computer controlled ignition system you want to run illegal?
I understand what you are saying, and I don't disagree with you. I know that systems like this have/or maybe are being run, and simply wanted clarification as to it was legal for me to do.
Being new to this, I'll probably have more! :-D
-
IMO this all come down to the definition of a computer. So is the MSD unit considered a computer or not? When that is addressed, you will have your answer.
Tom G.
-
Nathan, Then how do you classify traction control modules with the ignition? They have a processor and are programmable with a computer for wheel slip and can control the ignition. It is conceivable with some work someone can change it do a host of other things on the ignition side. Just curious. Tony
Computers can be used for data collection only. Nothing that's computer controlled can affect engine operation. Therefore I would think computer controlled traction devices would be illegal for vintage engines in vintage bodies.
Nathan, So the way I am interpreting your comment is no traction control in vintage classes. From my basic understanding of traction control, most systems take two wheel speed imputes and calculate the difference in wheel speed and pull cylinders to compensate for lack of traction. Correct me if I am wrong, but this would be illegal. Will the rule be rewritten to reflect that no traction control in vintage classes for next year? I would imagine there would be a slew of vintage cars this year at speed week with traction control. I don’t care where the line is drawn in the sand as long its drawn and there is no selective enforcement. Tony
Why would it need to be rewritten if it already clearly says computers can only be used for data recording? Doesn't that already answer your question? Personally, I don't think the usage of TC is very predominant in our sport, let alone on vintage engines in vintage bodies.
-
IMO this all come down to the definition of a computer. So is the MSD unit considered a computer or not? When that is addressed, you will have your answer.
Tom G.
Something that uses a 9 pin serial cable and PC software sure as shit sounds like a computer to me. If you want something that reduces ignition timing as manifold pressure increases use the MSD BTM. It's NOT a computer.
-
Why would it need to be rewritten if it already clearly says computers can only be used for data recording? Doesn't that already answer your question? Personally, I don't think the usage of TC is very predominant in our sport, let alone on vintage engines in vintage bodies.
Because the rulebook contradicts itself by saying traction control is legal in all classes. I don’t know how prevalent traction control is, but last year I saw at least 5 vintage cars that had it, and from talking just to the Motec guys they said they sold quit a few units when the rule was opened up so I would assume there are more in other classes. Then there are the other systems aside from Motec. Tony
-
Nathan,
Thanks for the education. Much appreciated. Now if I can ask a favor? For people who are not familiar with the rule book, I feel the wording should be changed and not state that any ignition is allowed. Since that is really not true. I feel this would help eliminate any confusion. Maybe it should say Any ignition is allowed as long as the ignition is not computer controlled or have a microprocessor which can be programmed.
What do you think?
Tom G.
-
last year I saw at least 5 vintage cars that had it
Really? At least five vintage cars with vintage engines are using TC?
-
Have to remember that "Vintage Cars" include AA/BFMRs.
Stan
-
So what about cars that hold records in Vintage engines, with Vintage bodies that have processor controlled ignitions?
I belive I have seen them in the past.
Should those records be held, or deleted, or?
How is it fair for the rest of us to under-compete?
-
Have to remember that "Vintage Cars" include AA/BFMRs.
Stan
Yeah I think that's where Tony is maybe confused. I'm talking about vintage engines in vintages bodies, not the vintage body class all together.
Didn't know us vintage engine guys were making so much power to require the use of TC. :-P
-
Didn't know us vintage engine guys were making so much power to require the use of TC.
:?
Blown Fuel Modified Roadster - /BFMR
XF Hogan, Martin & Rea A. Rea 08/08 180.627
XXF Ferguson Racing D. Ferguson III 10/09 235.287
Unblown Fuel Modified Roadster - /FMR
XF Don Ferguson Sr. & Jr D. Ferguson Jr. 08/80 173.053
XO Don Ferguson Sr. & Jr. & III D. Ferguson Jr. 08/88 207.369
XXF Ferguson Racing D. Ferguson Jr. 08/08 214.553
XXO Don Ferguson Sr., Jr., III & Randy D. Ferguson, Jr. 08/91 209.895
Blown Gas Modified Roadster - /BGMR
XF Thompson Racing M. Reyman 08/09 194.555
XO Maranatha Spl D. Crower 08/87 194.415
XXF Kings Ransom K. Walton 08/01 195.038
Unblown Gas Modified Roadster - /GMR
XF Pappas & Stevens J. Stevens 08/97 164.558
XO Flat Trap Racing J. Kay 09/08 168.677
XXF Ferguson / Osborn / Spacek M. Osborn 08/02 202.974
XXO Jack's Bar R. Victor 08/01 175.506
Blown Fuel Roadster - /BFR
XF Hogan - Martin - Rea A. Rea 08/06 189.785
XXF Munz & Busby D. Busby 10/09 200.875
Unblown Fuel Roadster - /FR
XF Pappas & Stevens J. Stevens 08/96 162.490
XO Don Ferguson Sr. & Jr. D. Ferguson Jr. 08/95 182.982
XXF Ferguson Racing D. Ferguson III 08/07 196.154
XXO Goldman & Shores G. Goldman 08/09 215.748
Blown Gas Roadster - /BGR
XF Hi Boy D. Monaco 08/06 175.880
XXF Wasted Willie Flatheads W. Glass 08/06 208.243
Unblown Gas Roadster - /GR
XO Tone Motorsports J.D. Tone 10/09 166.001
XXF Wasted Willie Flatheads W. Glass 08/09 187.292
XXO Morrill & Thornton B. Morrill 08/87 180.894
Blown Street Roadster - /BSTR
XF Mariani Farms D. Mariani 08/09 162.421
XO Bajurin & Swansborough D. Bajurin 08/09 158.915
XXF Munz & Busby J. Busby 10/09 195.457
Unblown Street Roadster - /STR
XF Pappas & Stevens J. Stevens 08/00 165.671
XO Marsh Runyon M. Runyon 08/09 153.688
XXF Munz & Busby J. Busby 08/08 171.865
XXO Lee Tull L. Tull 08/91 169.491
edit: added JD
-
There are two and shortly maybe three Vintage engines going three hundred MPH. That qualifies as enough power to me.
-
Nathan,
Thanks for the education. Much appreciated. Now if I can ask a favor? For people who are not familiar with the rule book, I feel the wording should be changed and not state that any ignition is allowed. Since that is really not true. I feel this would help eliminate any confusion. Maybe it should say Any ignition is allowed as long as the ignition is not computer controlled or have a microprocessor which can be programmed.
What do you think ?
Tom G.
Nathan,
What do you think of a language change in the rule book?
Tom G.
-
Nathan, My point was not about traction control, but how vague the rule is written. For example the rulebook says any frame could be used except in some class rules like STR of GC it spells out what the frame should be. So when the book says traction control is legal in all classes and any ignition is legal in vintage what does that suppose to mean. Intent of the rule is great, but many of us aren’t mind readers and don’t know what was on the mind of the rule writer. Also if you took a hard look I think you would be surprised at how many traction control units are being used in LSR.
As for vintage engines not have much HP, I think you might have been misinformed. Other than the posted references, I know of a V4 that is making over 400hp. This is not hearsay; I was in the dyno cell when they were making the pulls a few weeks ago, and they thought they could get more with a better tune up, and its going in a street roadster.
I have no dog in this fight and I have no traction control and my vintage engine has a magneto, but the rules need to be more clear as evident from this thread. Tony :cheers:
-
As for vintage engines not have much HP, I think you might have been misinformed. Other than the posted references, I know of a V4 that is making over 400hp. This is not hearsay; I was in the dyno cell when they were making the pulls a few weeks ago, and they thought they could get more with a better tune up, and its going in a street roadster.
Tony :cheers:
Tony,
At El Mirage that Roadster should run in the 165 + range with that kind of HP. Looking forward to seeing it run.
Tom G.
-
Tom, It’s not my engine or car, I only built them the head. It’s an ex IRL Aurora head that’s been cut up and welded together. I have no idea what the rest of the engine is built with, but I know it’s a legal engine. They are redoing some of the car and hopefully it should make the last Elmo meet this year. Tony
-
Wow I screwed up this post pretty bad. What I was trying to do was point out that I added a smiley face to my mention of vintage engines not making lots of power or whatever I said so you guys can see that I'm being facetious. I forgot that you can't read sarcasm. :roll: See, the smiley face makes it all make sense, right?
-
Unblown Fuel Roadster - /FR
XF Pappas & Stevens J. Stevens 08/96 162.490
XO Don Ferguson Sr. & Jr. D. Ferguson Jr. 08/95 182.982
XXF Ferguson Racing D. Ferguson III 08/07 196.154
XXO Goldman & Shores G. Goldman 08/09 215.748
I don't see your point Mike. Are you suggesting that all the current records holders must some how make so much power that they need traction control? I don't think I agree with you if that's your point. You guys do understand that cubic inches to cubic inches, these records are waaaay slow compared to non-vintage motors right? But that's the reason we have the separate class.
I want to point out one record in particular that you mentioned Mike. The first one up there at the top of my quote; XF/FR @ 162 and change. Up until last year, we held the V4/FR record at 169 mph with a 215 ci banger. No TC needed. :roll:
-
Good-bye, Nathan. :cheers:
-
Don't go away mad Mike. Just go away knowing that you CAN NOT used a computer controlled ignition system. Show up with one and I will personally submit a protest.
-
Nathan,
What do you think of a language change in the rule book?
Tom G.
Tom, I partially agree with your suggestion. Just to give some back ground on me and my experience outside of LSR, I've worked in the aftermarket automotive industry now for a few years and when I write instruction manuals for a product I've developed I do so with the knowledge that people who know little or nothing about cars in general will be installing and using this certain product. So I try to know my audience and write at a level that anyone can understand. So that part of me says, yes, dumb it down if you will and make it so obvious there absolutely couldn't be a question about it.
The other part of me says that we aren't dealing with dummies here. These are all intelligent people who can clearly speak and read English. I think what's going on here is that people are trying to make it say something that it doesn't. I think if they keep asking it over and over and going to different people they think they might hear the answer that they want to hear. So part of my says no, it's fine as is and the proof is that it's been fine so far and I'd like to say that almost all of our current competitors have been able to follow these rules so far without issue. They seem to get it just fine.
So like Creel says, more words, same rule. Is that what we really need? Maybe.
-
Nathan,
Thanks for the reply, I appreciate it. I understand what you are saying about more words same rule. So how about we just remove Number 4. Why do we need to say Any ignition system can be used, when in essence that is not true. We go to the extent to spell out in Number 3. that EFI is prohibited, yet that is controlled by a computer, and Number 2 would over rule that. I can see where it does get confusing. Maybe just remove both Number 3 and Number 4.
Page 17, vintage engines in Vintage Body's:
1. No turbochargers are permitted.
2. Computers are allowed for data collection purposes only.
3. Electronic Fuel Injection prohibited.
4. Any ignition system may be used.
OR maybe we should change the whole thing to read something to the effect of:
1. No turbochargers are permitted.
2. Computers are allowed for data collection purposes only, No computer controlled
devices (microprocessors) of any kind affecting and or controlling engine operation will be permitted.
This would cover any new technology that would come out in the future. And be one less line in the rule book.
Tom G.
-
Tom, I think you're on the right track. Good suggestions.
-
4-B Mike...I feel slighted you left my XO/GR record off your listing......The tongue lashings will begin :evil:...JD
-
But JD, you of all people wouldn't need traction control. :mrgreen:
Mike
-
Just for the record, I started this thread in December 2006, attempting to clarify an ambiguity in the new for 2007 rules. No authoritative answer was given and the query was dropped that month.
Earlier this month this thread was brought back up asking the still unanswered question.
After a lot of flailing about, it turned that that a(n apparently large) number of people had drawn some bad conclusions about the rule as written.
Today I was told by an SCTA official that NO programmable ignitions may be used on a vintage engine in a vintage body. Fine. I accept that, no problem.
The process could have been a lot easier, but I finally have the answer to the question I asked in 2006.
Thanks to all who participated.
Good luck, Pedro! :cheers:
Mike
-
:-D So I don't make enough HP to need traction control but I'm faster than 5 of the listed ones. Strange!! JD
-
I was thinking more of good driver skills rather than lack of horsepower, but, ok, I've editted you in. :cheers:
Mike
-
Like Mike Cook says "my right foot is my traction control".......................just like mine.........JD
-
If you want to slow down, just take your foot off the gas!
Jack
-
And still we have problems with officials believing that a rule says what they think it says.
"NO programmable ignitions may be used", of course, rules out centrifugal advance (since its behavior is variable, and pre-set in anticipation of use but the execution only occurs in operation so it's not an adjustment). A "program" was used to produce a textile pattern in a loom 400 years ago.
Let me guess, the usual remarks apply here:
1. "don't be ridiculous"
2. "everyone knows what it means"
3. "why are you making trouble"
Oh, did you mean to prohibit non-mechanical programs?
Let me know when you want any of this stuff cleared up...
-
No dog in this hunt, but I will throw this out for reference.
Some years ago in kart racing, programmable ignitions were used.
When some folks went faster than other "tuners" the myth of traction control was thrown into the hype of the programmable ignitions.
This started up one big shiz storm and killed the motor class along with the performance. It also started up the stock ignition box/cheater ign box wars.
The truth is that in order for a "computor ignition" system to perform the function of TC, an external sensor must be employed.
Be careful of the "computer" label on ignitions, you could probably argue that a MSD 6 box with rev limiter could be labeled as a computer.
BTW, I am now looking for a Sun dist machine.
Cheers, John
-
I am thinking of building a v4 engine. As I read the 2010 rules"Modifications yo said blocks shall be limited to Factory production or factory authorized replacements and shall retain all original dimensions". This would seems to preclude changing from poured bearings to insert. Am I correct?
-
No. That is pertaining to the replacement of the block itself. You can change almost everything else, and most do.
-
"Let me know when you want any of this stuff cleared up..."
Jeffrey,
I have asked you to contribute several times. Yet, you still refuse to offer input to the rules committees. You instead continue to berate the rules as written, bad mouth the officials and others who give of their time in an attempt to provide a rulebook and an a event venue so that those who wish can chase a dream.
I am not an educated man with a degree but, I fail to see where a retired court clerk from upstate New York with no Bonneville experience(per Google) is in a position to comment on event procedures when he doesn't have feet on the ground.
As stated, I am not an engineer but I do have over 40 years of dry lake experience in running/driving LSR cars and organizing events.
The date for rule change submissions is past for this year, sorry you "panic ed" and missed the cut point. I look forward to your input next year.
DW
-
"Let me know when you want any of this stuff cleared up..."
Jeffrey,
I have asked you to contribute several times. Yet, you still refuse to offer input to the rules committees. You instead continue to berate the rules as written, bad mouth the officials and others who give of their time in an attempt to provide a rulebook and an a event venue so that those who wish can chase a dream.
I am not an educated man with a degree but, I fail to see where a retired court clerk from upstate New York with no Bonneville experience(per Google) is in a position to comment on event procedures when he doesn't have feet on the ground.
As stated, I am not an engineer but I do have over 40 years of dry lake experience in running/driving LSR cars and organizing events.
The date for rule change submissions is past for this year, sorry you "panic ed" and missed the cut point. I look forward to your input next year.
DW
:-D :cheers:
JL222
-
And still we have problems with officials believing that a rule says what they think it says.
"NO programmable ignitions may be used", of course, rules out centrifugal advance (since its behavior is variable, and pre-set in anticipation of use but the execution only occurs in operation so it's not an adjustment). A "program" was used to produce a textile pattern in a loom 400 years ago.
Let me guess, the usual remarks apply here:
1. "don't be ridiculous"
2. "everyone knows what it means"
3. "why are you making trouble"
Oh, did you mean to prohibit non-mechanical programs?
Let me know when you want any of this stuff cleared up...
Ok,I'll pick usual remark #1!
You're rule book must be different than mine, because mine does not say "NO programmable ignitions may be used".
Rather, it states " Computers are allowed for data collection only', making your argument moot.
Any time there are rules, there will be different interpretations-Look at our court proceedings. This issue has been clarified, and any on going, or future ones, will too.
To me, it doesn't really matter what the rules are, as long as I can get clarification as to their meaning and intent.
Thanks to Dan, Nate, and Doug! Being new, I've emailed literally dozens of questions, and received clarification on every one.
-
Bravo!
You've learned quick, 38 Flattie!
(How can 38's be flattie? DD?)
Stan
-
Cadillac flattie! :evil:
Edit: Now I get it! :-D
-
You're rule book must be different than mine, because mine does not say "NO programmable ignitions may be used".
I suggest remedial reading.
That's not my rule book, I'm "quoting" the previous post - see how that works? There are "quotes" around it?
Thanks to Dan, Nate, and Doug! Being new, I've emailed literally dozens of questions, and received clarification on every one.
Would those be exactly as accurate, reliable and binding as the clarification on the Buick L8 engine?
-
You're rule book must be different than mine, because mine does not say "NO programmable ignitions may be used".
I suggest remedial reading.
That's not my rule book, I'm "quoting" the previous post - see how that works? There are "quotes" around it?
Thanks to Dan, Nate, and Doug! Being new, I've emailed literally dozens of questions, and received clarification on every one.
Would those be exactly as accurate, reliable and binding as the clarification on the Buick L8 engine?
1)-I was making the point that you are just being argumentative, and boring!
2)Good enough for me. The Salt Cat guys, being stand up guys, and fierce competitors. got over it- what'syour dog in the race?
-
On second thought, nevermind!
You don't build cars, you build sentences.
You're not a competitor, your a naysayer, debater, and a pessimist. You don't get it, and never will.
Life's not perfect, and neither is racing. The VOLUNTEERS you are so fond of criticizing, do great job- just ask anyone that participates.
First time builders, like myself, must seem like a major PITA to them, continuously asking the most basic of questions.
...yet they continue to take THEIR time, and provide helpful answers. Go figure!
-
got over it?
Is your competence really that bad that you don't understand what happened to them? They were DQ by violating a rule that does not exist (the one that prohibits modification to existing original heads).
My point was not what they did (decided to give up and do what they were told, rather than annoy the management and write off the car), but that they felt the same way - right up to the minute that they discovered that the "rules" are whatever someone says they are.
Let me guess: you don't remember any of my posts concerning the re-classification of antique motorcycles (DW doesn't either)? I had considerable money invested in a specific displacement, which is now not competitive. Some "experts" decided to trash the entire VG engine size method (including the validity of many existing records), making my project an expensive boat anchor.
I'll be happy to show up for any meeting on Long Island.
Was your point that I should visit La-La land to be treated rudely?
Remind me: when did my age, health, medical regimen and financial condition become familiar to you, and subject to your decisions?
I think all future meetings should be held in Hempstead. Anyone who prefers not to show up can't vote.
You're making a common error: you're not bored, you just have a short attention span.
-
Jeffrey,
"Anyone who prefers not to show up can't vote."
Is this why you don't vote? I do remeber your whine about "your" project. Rules changes/rewrites have happened in the past and will continue to do so.
Real racers roll with the punch and come back with a plan and a victory. Difficult to do when you run away.
DW
-
I'm not your child, or your servant, and your familiarity is not welcome.
If you insist on being personal, "Mr. Diamond" is acceptable.
Since you condemn it in others, use your full name in every post? Thanks!
-
This is about the time when posts start getting erased.
-
He doesn't have to, everyone knows who he is. At least if you have been to impound.
-
Now this is about Vintage Motorcycle displacement? How did that happen? If people don't like the way the SCTA runs it's program, don't they have the option of running the Bub meet?
-
. . . and you don't have to attend the Rules Meeting to have input.
-
bville is talking about panic erasing his posts..... its a known pattern... he shoots his mouth off in type and a couple days later regrets them and then deletes his posts, he then disappears for a little while.... comes from not having a spine or azz to back up his mouth....
Kent
-
He doesn't have to, everyone knows who he is. At least if you have been to impound.
if your talking about Dan then yes we know him well. :-)
Kent, thanks for your interpretation. :-D
-
Isn't he the guy that runs that elitist overnight parking lot?
-
Isn't he the guy that runs that elitist overnight parking lot?
And when you get there you get the key to the executive port-a-potty too.
-
comes from not having a spine or azz to back up his mouth
Did I hear a little girl squeaking somewhere?
Come see me - we can discuss it.
-
My interest in teasing small children has expired, but don't let me dampen your enthusiasm - everyone must have a rude remark they want to share.
-
So anyway I'm a social worker......I browse this board during the day because it gives me a break from the crap I have to deal with....that crap includes pointless argumentative people , attention seekers and having to deal with people unable to accept others opinions or see an issue from any other than their own perspective.
No relief here today. :roll:
-
My interest in teasing small children has expired
So, Is it back to LSR on Long Island?
-
Panic, Diamond, Jeffery, whomever you are you re on the very thin edge of joining FNR and BLN 57 T-Bird into oblivion on this site..
The choice is yours, either stop yer blithering CA-CA, or you, I'll guarantee, will be gone if yers truly has anything to say about it.
From what I read on nearly ALL yer posts, you're ONE SICK PUPPY!
-
Panic, Diamond, Jeffery, whomever you are, you' re on the very thin edge of joining FNR and BLN 57 T-Bird into oblivion on this site..
The choice is yours, either stop yer blithering CA-CA, or you, I'll guarantee, will be GONE if yers truly has anything to say about it.
From what I read on nearly ALL yer posts, although reasonably knowledgeable, you are ONE SICK, HATEFUL PUPPY!
-
I browse this board during the day because it gives me a break from the crap I have to deal with....that crap includes pointless argumentative people , attention seekers and having to deal with people unable to accept others opinions or see an issue from any other than their own perspective.
No relief here today.
Times two
Geo
-
So anyway I'm a social worker......I browse this board during the day because it gives me a break from the crap I have to deal with....that crap includes pointless argumentative people , attention seekers and having to deal with people unable to accept others opinions or see an issue from any other than their own perspective.
No relief here today. :roll:
Where I come from there is one fitting title...........
http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w295/gearheadeh/troll.jpg