Landracing Forum
El Mirage => El Mirage General Chat => Topic started by: RichFox on July 12, 2010, 03:12:30 PM
-
Tom
El mirage we set 3records on my birthday! Rick with788 still maintains first points over Michele in 6060 by 1 point. Tim got a record of 149 by 1mph. I don.t think 8080 will be a big record setter.
8080 was scrutinized by a ad hoc group of "fact finders" they adjourned to a private meeting. to prepare their findings to present to the "tech committee" Which will eventually find its way to the board. just like they did with 5050.I believe there will rule changes. Which means streamliner specs. (not the game I have always admired!)
They followed Tims perfect run, found no marks, and had no negative comments.But the pall of doom is still
hangs heavy.
I could eliminate the skids with no ill effects. They create aero drag anyway.Dodge the
safety they provide!
What if a narrow tread was found to be the most efficient way to propell a optimized shape in a straight line? How will we ever know?
Shouldn't new ideas in a class that is supposed to represent the epitome of innovation be recognized as a means to create growth, advance progress and impart knowledge?
How many of these voters have ever had an original thought, and were able to build, drive, learn and improve the next design?.
An original thought-----I don't use Acura gaskets on public toilets , because I know everybody else does and the seat is clean! If I am stupid enough to believe this, I should have the right to save the store owner money, have a more confotable non wrinkle making seat, and probably not infect my Acura!
Jack Costella
-
Tom
El mirage we set 3records on my birthday! Rick with788 still maintains first points over Michele in 6060 by 1 point. Tim got a record of 149 by 1mph. I don.t think 8080 will be a big record setter.
8080 was scrutinized by a ad hoc group of "fact finders" they adjourned to a private meeting. to prepare their findings to present to the "tech committee" Which will eventually find its way to the board. just like they did with 5050.I believe there will rule changes. Which means streamliner specs. (not the game I have always admired!)
They followed Tims perfect run, found no marks, and had no negative comments.But the pall of doom is still
hangs heavy.
I could eliminate the skids with no ill effects. They create aero drag anyway.Dodge the
safety they provide!
What if a narrow tread was found to be the most efficient way to propell a optimized shape in a straight line? How will we ever know?
Shouldn't new ideas in a class that is supposed to represent the epitome of innovation be recognized as a means to create growth, advance progress and impart knowledge?
How many of these voters have ever had an original thought, and were able to build, drive, learn and improve the next design?.
An original thought-----I don't use Acura gaskets on public toilets , because I know everybody else does and the seat is clean! If I am stupid enough to believe this, I should have the right to save the store owner money, have a more confotable non wrinkle making seat, and probably not infect my Acura!
Jack Costella
Please forward this to your LSR buddies!
Jack,
I’ve attached the CP estimate for 8080 with tail fin. The estimate is almost 6 full inches farther aft than 7070 was due to the tail fin. This reduces the required front weight to 30.5% at neutral stability or 275 pounds for a 900 pound total car weight. You had mentioned a CG position near the leading edge of the side window, which would be a couple inches forward of the estimated CP. This location also closely matches the skid position for greatest lateral stability contribution, another good design choice. The fin is clearly doing good things by pulling the CP aft, although it also raises the CP increasing the roll sensitivity to crosswinds.
An interesting trade study would be to extend the rear overhang to create a similar area to the top mounted tail fin. Actually it would take less total area since the moment arm behind the CG would be longer. The small included angle at the trailing edge of your shapes keeps the boundary layer attached much farther aft than traditional shapes as evidenced by the almost complete lack of track dust drawn up into the turbulence. This would allow removal of the fin with no loss of directional stability. You could probably reduce the front weight by adding more surface out back and get better acceleration performance, especially for the short run at ElMirage. How much lighter could the car be if you were not trying to move the CG forward for stability?
The ultimate tail would eliminate both the parachute tube and the push bar to leave a smooth sharp trailing edge. Could you get the engine exhaust over or between the rear tire(s) to avoid disturbing the laminar side panel flow? The flow field disturbance would probably be smaller and more symmetrical if the exhaust went out the top center instead of the side. Maybe as the rear body length extends it could be a set of moving air brake flaps strong enough to push directly on and contain the parachute stowage inside the body volume? This is starting to look a lot like parts of that streamliner from Montana? These air brake flaps could even have the skids on their lower surfaces and extend wider than your current maximum width to further improve roll stability. When they retracted to the closed position the skids would be near centerline and reduce complaints from others?
Your list of benefits and changes incorporated into the 8080 vehicle is well done. Is the 200 pound increase all in safety equipment? Do the two rear tires mount on the same wheel with dual flanges, or are there actually two rear wheels as well? Does the 1 5/8 cage on 8080 have any plating over the outside? I agree that narrower track is good from a yaw moment reduction standpoint as long as the yaw stability is maintained by the CG-CP relationship to ensure that the vehicle keeps the nose pointed down track. If this condition is not part of the operation of the car a pencil rolling crash as the car tries to swap ends in accordance with the laws of nature will always result. Wide tracks are not a solution to improper weight and balance, as evidenced by the Bryant crash. What are you using for a tilt switch now? I believe this should be a car requirement as well since many times the car will be over before the driver can react and deploy chutes. Once an accident starts in these long narrow vehicles the most important thing that can be done to reduce damaging loads is keep the nose pointed down course to avoid the pencil roll and pole vault conditions and this requires a deployed chute as early as possible. Has Tim discussed the handling properties with SCTA officials so they can be comfortable that the car can get through the lights without hitting anything? This should go a long ways towards calming them down. Do you still have the small skids at the rear axle centerline like 7070? A single rear tire failure on 8080 could be very difficult to control since the remaining tire would now be offset (although less distance than a wider track would produce) and the roll resistance at the front is very low due to the narrow track. The good news is the pantograph front should not be too sensitive to the lean angle in terms of chamber steering. The down side skid will be producing drag that will yaw further into the turn radius and potentially tighten the turn, but for the long wheelbase it should be manageable.
What led you away from the inline front wheel arrangement that was used on the NT3 788 car? It would seem to me that the smaller cross section out front would be lower aerodynamic drag than the pantograph linkage enclosure on 7070 and 8080. If the new approach evolved around the two wheeled application of 7070 it makes more sense, but for a four wheeled car application the inline arrangement should perform better. The walking beam with opposed spindles looks like good geometry development, did it work well? The rubber mounted bulkhead style suspension should work great for high frequency vibration isolation with minimal deflection.
One of these days I am going to need a smaller, simpler land speed car than our current deal and the small displacement machines have always interested me. The design process to optimize the configuration and then building the actual hardware has been more fun than actually running the car for me. There will probably be plenty more thought and discussion go into this before any actual material or hardware is purchased.
Let me know how things go at ElMirage this weekend.
Thanks,
Tom
Yep Jacks teams were getting it done and done well.
J
-
It was really great being there with Jack for his B'Day and watching his vehicles dominate.
What a great moment in LSR History those of us witnessed on Sunday.
Michelle, Rick and Tim all did great and made Jack very proud. What a way to spend your birthday!
I feel very very lucky to be part of this sport where our modern legends are making history at every meet. :cheers:
-
But it would appear that some people are not comfortable with the 8080 car ad wish to rule it out.
-
SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION CATEGORY
This category is the pinnacle of the straightaway racer’s art. It contains two groups, the unlimited Streamliners and open wheeled Lakesters, running both blown and unblown, gas or fuel engines. These are all-out straightaway vehicles with non-stock engine blocks allowed. Innovation is unlimited. Modified production bodies are forbidden.
It is strongly recommended that all new vehicles be submitted for a pre-event inspection by appointment with the Technical Committee. If not practical because of distance, photographs and drawings may be submitted to the Technical Committee Chairman:
STREAMLINER - /BFS, /FS, /BGS, /GS, /DS
This class is for the all-out land speed record car. Cars in this class must have at least four wheels, but they need not be arranged in a rectangular configuration. The design of the body is restricted only to the extent that at least two (2) wheels must be covered.
Engine classes allowed are W, AA, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, XO, XF, XXF, XXO, & V4.
But it would appear that some people are not comfortable with the 8080 car ad wish to rule it out.
-
This post is a little confusing, but I'm guessing that Tim's new suit fit well enough for him to set a new record??? Congrats.
RICK
-
dont make me laugh---last year all of jacks bikes were made illegal with the 20 degree tip rule --wonder who thought that one up ( probibly the ones who had the bikes that would already tilt that far GUESS WHO )---innovation is unlimited my a$$ ---do you know that those bikes held at least 12 records----now there are 3 cars running under the costella banner and with a swipe of a pen those could be disallowed also---and so could anything anyone of you original thinkers could build---willie buchta
-
dont make me laugh---last year all of jacks bikes were made illegal with the 20 degree tip rule --wonder who thought that one up ( probibly the ones who had the bikes that would already tilt that far GUESS WHO )---innovation is unlimited my a$$ ---do you know that those bikes held at least 12 records----now there are 3 cars running under the costella banner and with a swipe of a pen those could be disallowed also---and so could anything anyone of you original thinkers could build---willie buchta
Willie...I am not so sure you are correct here...
-
Many posts ago DW quote was '
"Boy, I am glad I am not involved in this one"
-
Many posts ago DW quote was '
"Boy, I am glad I am not involved in this one"
Well played... :cheers:
-
Since Rich edited this part out I'll add it back in:
Jack,
I’ve attached the CP estimate for 8080 with tail fin. The estimate is almost 6 full inches farther aft than 7070 was due to the tail fin. This reduces the required front weight to 30.5% at neutral stability or 275 pounds for a 900 pound total car weight. You had mentioned a CG position near the leading edge of the side window, which would be a couple inches forward of the estimated CP. This location also closely matches the skid position for greatest lateral stability contribution, another good design choice. The fin is clearly doing good things by pulling the CP aft, although it also raises the CP increasing the roll sensitivity to crosswinds.
An interesting trade study would be to extend the rear overhang to create a similar area to the top mounted tail fin. Actually it would take less total area since the moment arm behind the CG would be longer. The small included angle at the trailing edge of your shapes keeps the boundary layer attached much farther aft than traditional shapes as evidenced by the almost complete lack of track dust drawn up into the turbulence. This would allow removal of the fin with no loss of directional stability. You could probably reduce the front weight by adding more surface out back and get better acceleration performance, especially for the short run at ElMirage. How much lighter could the car be if you were not trying to move the CG forward for stability?
The ultimate tail would eliminate both the parachute tube and the push bar to leave a smooth sharp trailing edge. Could you get the engine exhaust over or between the rear tire(s) to avoid disturbing the laminar side panel flow? The flow field disturbance would probably be smaller and more symmetrical if the exhaust went out the top center instead of the side. Maybe as the rear body length extends it could be a set of moving air brake flaps strong enough to push directly on and contain the parachute stowage inside the body volume? This is starting to look a lot like parts of that streamliner from Montana? These air brake flaps could even have the skids on their lower surfaces and extend wider than your current maximum width to further improve roll stability. When they retracted to the closed position the skids would be near centerline and reduce complaints from others?
Your list of benefits and changes incorporated into the 8080 vehicle is well done. Is the 200 pound increase all in safety equipment? Do the two rear tires mount on the same wheel with dual flanges, or are there actually two rear wheels as well? Does the 1 5/8 cage on 8080 have any plating over the outside? I agree that narrower track is good from a yaw moment reduction standpoint as long as the yaw stability is maintained by the CG-CP relationship to ensure that the vehicle keeps the nose pointed down track. If this condition is not part of the operation of the car a pencil rolling crash as the car tries to swap ends in accordance with the laws of nature will always result. Wide tracks are not a solution to improper weight and balance, as evidenced by the Bryant crash. What are you using for a tilt switch now? I believe this should be a car requirement as well since many times the car will be over before the driver can react and deploy chutes. Once an accident starts in these long narrow vehicles the most important thing that can be done to reduce damaging loads is keep the nose pointed down course to avoid the pencil roll and pole vault conditions and this requires a deployed chute as early as possible. Has Tim discussed the handling properties with SCTA officials so they can be comfortable that the car can get through the lights without hitting anything? This should go a long ways towards calming them down. Do you still have the small skids at the rear axle centerline like 7070? A single rear tire failure on 8080 could be very difficult to control since the remaining tire would now be offset (although less distance than a wider track would produce) and the roll resistance at the front is very low due to the narrow track. The good news is the pantograph front should not be too sensitive to the lean angle in terms of chamber steering. The down side skid will be producing drag that will yaw further into the turn radius and potentially tighten the turn, but for the long wheelbase it should be manageable.
What led you away from the inline front wheel arrangement that was used on the NT3 788 car? It would seem to me that the smaller cross section out front would be lower aerodynamic drag than the pantograph linkage enclosure on 7070 and 8080. If the new approach evolved around the two wheeled application of 7070 it makes more sense, but for a four wheeled car application the inline arrangement should perform better. The walking beam with opposed spindles looks like good geometry development, did it work well? The rubber mounted bulkhead style suspension should work great for high frequency vibration isolation with minimal deflection.
One of these days I am going to need a smaller, simpler land speed car than our current deal and the small displacement machines have always interested me. The design process to optimize the configuration and then building the actual hardware has been more fun than actually running the car for me. There will probably be plenty more thought and discussion go into this before any actual material or hardware is purchased.
Let me know how things go at ElMirage this weekend.
Thanks,
Tom
Who's Tom?
-
---innovation is unlimited my a$$ ---
Ironically enough you're totally right Willie. Here is the correct definition from the 2010 rule book:
5.A Special Construction Category
This category is the pinnacle of the straightaway racer’s art. It contains three main groups. In the automobile group are the unlimited Streamliners and open-wheeled Lakesters with a 4+ wheel configuration and in the motorcycle group are the Streamliner and Streamliner Sidecar classes. These classes allow both blown and unblown, gas or fuel engines. These are all-out straightaway vehicles with non-stock engine blocks allowed, (with the exception of specific Vintage engine classes). Innovation is encouraged, within the rules. Modified production bodies are forbidden.
-
:-D I think Willies by-line of "dpombatir" comes into play here!
-
nathan you are reading the 2010 rule book---as you should---to show how fast things change the 2009 rulebook says " innovation is unlimited" now it says innovation is encouraged within the rules -----thats a big change in one year the same year the 20 degree rule went into effect--- willie dpombatmir buchta
-
Nathan, Tom Burkland.
Willie, the 20* tip rule rule was adapted from the FIM.
DW
-
Good to know Dan. Tom offered up some very insightful information that I think is pertinent to this discussion.
-
Willie I don't really know if the rule actually changed or not. I think more words were added just to state the obvious and in effect the intent of the rule is the same. Safety rules come first in my mind and all things fall in after that but I'm a fairly conservative person in that respect. I don't know why all the conspiracy theories and cavalier attitudes start coming out when something like this comes up. I sincerely believe that our first priority as a family of racers is that safety comes first and that "innovation" can take a back seat to perserving someone's physical well being or life. And this applies to any and all vehicles participating in an SCTA event, not just the car in question.
Just my $.02. I hope this gets sorted.
-
Nathan is correct. The new words were added in 2010 because of a proposed vehicle that claimed they could build without a roll cage because "innovation is unlimited"
DW
-
And the change was presented at the Rules meeting to which all SCTA members were invited (good pizza!).
Stan
-
dW,
Would that proposed car without a roll cage be a certain streamliner from Kent Fuller?
If they decide to disqualify Jack's cars it will be a black day for the SCTA.
Rex
-
In my old age I'm easily confused. I'm trying to follow this thread,,,,,But, have a question. Is "8080" a car or a bike??????
Thanks, RICK
-
Latest El Mirage results:
8080 J GS Costella & Cunha Eliminators Tim Cunha 149.640 149.030 225
:cheers:
Mike
-
Hi Nathen
When I hear that 8080 steering is being referred to as wagon steering, by a factfinder, and that skids don't define a car, and ignore the safety they provide in event of a flat, and a scribe line on a round billet is the same degree of cheating, as two wheels close together is an insult!
A streamliner is not a car or a motorcycle! It is a "vehicle' designed to set records in a straight line! They are all different! They should be put through rigorous observed tests, not be banned by hearsay, prejudice and rule changes! Streamliners are the last motorized non handicapped sport! Lets be safe, be fairly observed and advance into the future!
I need, and am thankfull for all the help from SCTA! I too have a lot at risk!
I jump on my horse Cavalier and hopefully ride into a free thinking and creative future!
Thanks Jack
-
Jack,
You've always been a personal hero of mine and I respect and admire your limitless innovation. I know that safety is a priority in your mind which leads me to believe that you've built a car that you know is safe. Perhaps I won't personally create growth, advance progress or impart our knowledge by playing with conventional stuff like stupid roadsters or Model B Fords, but I like rules that keep me and others safe. I personally like knowing that a group of concerned experienced racers that have volunteered to act as guardians and enforcers of these rules care enough to say hey, let's take a step back and really take a good look at things before we go further. I've personally seen more than enough bad things happen that I'll personally never take what the rules are trying to do to keep me safe for granted. But like I said, I'm kind of conservative like that I guess. I think at the end of the day it's still about having fun and safe is fun in my mind and I'm sure you'd agree with me.
Anyways, I'm sure this will all get sorted out in due time. Being so far ahead of the curve just means the rest of the curve has to catch up with you.
Best of luck Jack.
Nathan
-
Nathan
Your a good man! I remember them old times!
Your Friend Jack
-
Safety is a relative term! We all want to be safe in our vehicles! I want to be safe in my liner! That is job number one for Jack and I! As you all know, there is an element of risk in this hobby of ours, and it has to be dealt with in a fair way. The SCTA is doing it's best to be open and positive about the issues they perceive with 8080.
All the "great" leaders with their committees, created or changed rules believing they are, or were doing what was best for their people. By the stroke of a pen, the raising of a hand, rules are created and changed to save us from our own "stupidity".
What I do not want to have happen, is the creation of some rule that will control the construction and design of "Streamliners". Just as they decided to define a 2 wheel "Streamliner" a motorcycle that has tip 20 degrees. They could decide that a "Streamliner" cannot tip or use skids, (skids that are for support in event of flat tire thus, a safety addition). These may seem like innocuous rule additions, but at this time it would only effect Jack's designs. Who knows what could be learned or what might develop with this new frame of reference or paradigm shift, (narrow tread, pantograph steering, safety skids, and the relevance of a flat bottom)?
We are more than willing to comply with the Technical advisers and rigorous dynamic testing.
I know this does not matter because I am the driver/co owner and am a bit biased and totally subjective, but this "Streamliner" is so easy to drive in a straight line that I could send a text message while going down the track! After years in my coupe, waiting for the handling demons to say "hello" this vehicle almost puts me to sleep.
No one can judge a design safe or unsafe the same way a cardboard or PVC rollbar can be judged!
I say "NO" to rule changes and the "spec" ing of "Streamliners", both two and four wheel!
Streamliners both 2 and 4 wheel are the ultimate straightaway vehicles, and should not be judged as cars or motorcycles.
FIM stated the 20degree rule was to "better define a motorcycle and for safety".
Many think it was promoted by people protecting their designs, records and pocketbooks!
We will never know, if a flat bottom, 2 wheel "Streamliner" will hold the record! Don't limit the design of 4Wheel "Streamliners" this way!
Jack,
You've always been a personal hero of mine and I respect and admire your limitless innovation. I know that safety is a priority in your mind which leads me to believe that you've built a car that you know is safe. Perhaps I won't personally create growth, advance progress or impart our knowledge by playing with conventional stuff like stupid roadsters or Model B Fords, but I like rules that keep me and others safe. I personally like knowing that a group of concerned experienced racers that have volunteered to act as guardians and enforcers of these rules care enough to say hey, let's take a step back and really take a good look at things before we go further. I've personally seen more than enough bad things happen that I'll personally never take what the rules are trying to do to keep me safe for granted. But like I said, I'm kind of conservative like that I guess. I think at the end of the day it's still about having fun and safe is fun in my mind and I'm sure you'd agree with me.
Anyways, I'm sure this will all get sorted out in due time. Being so far ahead of the curve just means the rest of the curve has to catch up with you.
Best of luck Jack.
Nathan
[/quote]
-
All that follows is on the basis of a long standing (but distant) friendship with Jack & Keiko .......... in other words a large degree of bias!
Talking of degrees (from the vertical), with the SCTA now following the lead of the FIM for defining motorcycles ........ how long will it be before the SCTA follows the FIA for producing cars? :roll:
All that needed to be said about innovation is that this does not apply to safety measures protecting the driver. Now it appears we have "Innovation is encouraged, within the rules". Not well put and probably an oxymoron (and following someone elses rules stifles and chokes most innovation).
Safety 'skids' are required on unlimited trucks, but seem now to be less welcome on a streamliner.
Flat bottoms are mandated in many formulae within the FIA (see my second para), so what Jack has being doing is actually required in other parts of the motorsport world - look at the F1 Honda that went for 400 kph on Bonneville.
Congratulations on the records achieved by Jack's designs on the dirt and salt. Would they get wiped away if the 8080, along with any other designed vehicles on 2 and 4 wheels, is banned?
Malcolm (in the UK)
-
safety skids are required on-- unlimited diesel truck--modified diesel truck--highway hauler--does my sidecar bike have a skid? you dammm right it does ---my chassis is 1 1/2 inch off the ground ---my rear rim is about 4 inches off the ground ---my skid is 1 inch off the ground ---sidecar on the left side -skid on the right side---the skid does 2 things --in case of a flat it will keep the chassis off of the race surface and keep the bike straight--in case of a wind gust from the left it limits how much the sidecar could lift----remember safety is no accident------------------------willie buchta
-
..Malcom....your quote "with the SCTA now following the lead of the FIM for defining motorcycles".....
is very interesting.....considering that about 6 yrs ago.....the FIM abandoned 100 yrs of tradition
and....adopted nearly the entire SCTA rule book for motorcycles in LSR......
-
Are you saying that for six years there has been no difference between the two organisations? So why is there the need for a BUB event?
Malcolm UK
see the PS
ps I do know that it is just the technical rules and that the SCTA could not adopt the operational methods of the FIM :-D.
-
Malcom...with the advent of the BUB meet...a revamp and redo
of FIM rules occured...making all records for however many decades...
boxed up....the new FIM rules are largely SCTA ......
this made FIM rules more suited to land speed racing....
so it was funny to me that you reflected SCTA following FIM, when
it is quite the opposite.....
kudos to BUB and SCTA for who they
are what they do ...
Joe :)
-
Willie
It seems to me that a four wheel design making two tracks, is inherently more stable than a two wheel design making one track. The addition of skids makes makes a design safer! Two wheel designs often fall over often, and that is accepted! My designs did not, and was made obsolete! Hmm!
Glad to hear you are using a skid! it's important to be safe!
Jack
-
It seems to me that there should be an appeal process or at least a grandfather provision for existing vehicles so they can continue to prove themselves. There's precedent set with the four wheel drive roadsters as far as a grandfather provision and the rear engined modified roadsters were brought back when proven safe (relatively).
Pete
-
maybe for the car guys----------------------------------------willie buchta
-
The 4 wheel drive roadsters are no longer allowed to run.
-
glen how many spun or crashed before they were disallowed--more than one ill bet willie buchta
-
In my opinion, spinning or crashing wasn't the reason.
Too much competition for tradition was the compelling situation.
How many rear wheel roadsters spin or crash?
They don't outlaw them for safety reasons.
FREUD
-
In my opinion, spinning or crashing wasn't the reason.
Too much competition for tradition was the compelling situation.
How many rear wheel roadster spin or crash?
They don't outlaw them for safety reasons.
FREUD
You can take that to the bank. It would have been nice to see a 4wd roadster go 300. Tony
-
In the July SCTA Board meeting minutes, there is no mention of vehicle #8080.
Is this thread "a lot to do about nothing".
Tom G.
-
"a lot to do about nothing".
Tom G.
Call this thread a pre-emptive strike against the possibility of it becoming something.
-
right on freud and tony---i dont think some of you folks get it ---this year all of jacks bikes were made illegal because of the 20 degree tilt rule---which was first passed by the fim then the scta ---at the july meet every time the 8080 car made a run it was followed by another vehicle (official) ---the 8080 car is almost like jacks bike liners except it has 2 wheels in front and 2 in the back ---the front and rear track is as narrow as possible--it also has some safety features that arnt in the rule book ( so does mine and sheris bikes ) an idea i borrowed from jack----remember the rules are all minimums -----oh and 3 cars with the costella name on them set records at the july meet ---who will be next willie buchta
-
Dan
FIM also has 2way flying mlle and unlimited track length! Some good, some bad, I guess1
jack
-
There have been many references in various posts as the 20 degree rule being the anti Jack rule or to squash innovation. All of which are made by folks that don’t really know why the rule was adopted by the FIM and SCTA.
The main reason the rule was adopted is that the FIM and SCTA rules have always said that streamliner stabilizing skids must be retracted as soon as the bike is stable. The flat bottom design of Jack’s could not meet this requirement. For the last 100 years the FIM has been certifying records of motorcycles that met this requirement, motorcycles that required the rider to use his skill balancing and counter steering to maintain control of the motorcycle. Two wheel motorcycles have always leaned during cornering.
This in conjunction with a very through investigation of Cliff’s accident which raised some safety concerns prompted the rule. An examination of the track during an earlier run showed the sides of the vehicle dragging the ground at various points during the run.
Jack’s design while innovative is really not a motorcycle but more of a sled with a drive wheel and front wheel. Jack’s car designs are a whole different issue and as far as I can see meet the car rules.
-
And what would you do desoto man?
-
Tony
If all roadsters were 4wd would they ban 2wd?
-
I firmly believe that the 20 degree was aimed at Jack's designs. I think there should be a grandfather clause unless a design is having problems with stability, i.e. more than one incident. Look at the number of drivers in Nascar who were kill, before the Hans device was made mandatory.
old...
+1 for Jack
-
So, if I understand correctly in NASCAR if a driver was driving before the HNR device was available he could drive without one. That would be grandfathering in. We could easily then decide who the next to go would be: Bill Elliott, Bobby Labonte, etc.
DW
-
And what would you do desoto man?
I would have an open line of comunication with the tech committee and get any issues they have with the car resolved.
Tom G.
-
I think the lines of communication have been very open. Good communication is no guaranty that the outcome will be what you wanted.
-
Dan
Good point I also think hans are good!
Should a new design be ruled on by test results,existing rules or opinion? jack
-
Desotoman
Good answer! How simple! Thanks!
Jack
-
Jack,
I am a stong advocate for test results.
DW
-
Ack
You have been, and always will be a motorcycle guy, a very good one at that!
I am a "Streamliner" both 2 wheel and 4 wheel kind of guy!
You make fast "motorcycles"!
I make fast "Streamliners!"
Someday I might make a dog "sled"
Your pal Jack
-
so if that liner went from flat bottom to V bottom and single wheels front and back possibly allowing it to tilt 20 degrees make it legal ?
-
ummmm.... well..... yes legal for a motorcycle! I don't think 8080 is a motorcycle!
kent
-
Ack
You have been, and always will be a motorcycle guy, a very good one at that!
I am a "Streamliner" both 2 wheel and 4 wheel kind of guy!
You make fast "motorcycles"!
I make fast "Streamliners!"
Someday I might make a dog "sled"
Your pal Jack
Be one fast dog sled
-
Dog sled been done - Team Arrow Racing ......... :-D
-
Woody
You guys built a dog sled eh? I'll bet it was a good one!
Good luck with your great Streamliner!
see you on the salt! jack