Landracing Forum
Bonneville Salt Flats Discussion => SCTA Rule Questions => Topic started by: Genuine GM on February 07, 2011, 03:52:59 PM
-
I haven't posted in a while. Life happened. My teammate and I were originally going to run V4F/MR. But after doing some real looking into the cost of to build a decent V4F, we decided to stick with what we know. Mainly SBC. Between us and some other friends we can build a 302 ci SBC for next to nothing, with really nice pieces no less. But in going that route, we came up with some new things and recently a 1948 Chevy P/U has become available for next to nothing. So we started looking in to D/MP. Last night a couple of questions came up.
Let me say that I only have the 2009 Rule Book. I am ordering a new one today.
1. The rules for MP are very minimal within that sub class. It states that MP also has to meet the requirements of Gas Coupe. Those rules state that the following cannot be altered from factory location or year: frame, etc. So, is it that simple? Can I use a reproduction frame (if one exist). I would have thought I could use a different frame, or make my own frame, especially considering this could be a 65 year old frame in a truck that was likely abused and ignored by the farmer that owned it. With this rule, I would have to get a new frame as the one in the truck that is available has been clipped and "back-halved".
2. If I have to use the original frame, do I have to use the original I-beam front suspension? I know there is a '49 Studebaker truck (#898???, it was in Hot Rod magazine) that has a 4 link in the back, but I am not sure about the front end. If you can change the front and rear suspension type and attachment, the frame changes would be extensive, so why the requirement for the original frame.
Hope this makes sense. Basically to make this a viable option for us, we need to keep this in a slower class, preferably under 200mph, to keep it cheaper (cheap is a relative term). D/MR is way fast and way fast equals more $$$$.
Thanks in advance.
:cheers:
C. J. Daniel
-
On my truck I am going with the assumption that while the original frame must be retained it may be extensively modified for it's intended purpose. I also assumed that the original Studebaker front axle and steering could and should be replaced. The good news for me is that if I ever finish it I probably won't have to worry about record certification anyway. Packard power and all. I'll be watching this thread with interest.
-
no takers :-o
-
So is my question that good, or that dumb.... :?
-
That :? :? good I think
-
Originally, I had Modified Gas Roadster on the brain (any type frame allowed), so when I had the chance at the truck, I envisioned the 1968 Chevy SWB frame I have as a starting point. Newer frame, trailing arms, factory IFS and a wider main rail arrangement making it easier to mount a cage.
It would seem to me that the frame should be the best/strongest design available, within each competitors budget, for safety reasons. As long as the body panels and bumpers remain in the same relation to each other, the total frontal area and cd would remain the same, and that is the real hinderance or challenge to going fast. Making an old brick cut through the wind as efficiently is possible.
The frame just holds it all together. In a spin-out, roll or other sudden stoppage, I would rather have something more modern than 2 C-shaped pieces of 63 year old steel, in a narrow ladder arrangement, supporting my cage.
Maybe I shouldn't worry about it, like RichFox said, it is highly unlikely I will ever be in the impound. This is for fun and the experience, and while SCTA rules are the primary concern with this build, it will also see the Texas Mile and maybe one of the local 1/8th mile 'strips, after a 3rd member swap.
C. J.
-
I am a tech inspector and a sometimes car builder. (My recent experience with cars has been dragster type chassis' and roll cages etc for the local stock car people. I have inspected many gas coupes and modified pickups over the years.
Having said that, I am, from a builder's perspective, going to give you something to think about. It says you must retain the stock frame in the stock location. It says NOTHING about what suspension- front or rear- that you may or may not run. I would be seriously looking at any of the Mustang II retrofit kits for the front end and your imagination and pocketbook are the only limits on the rear suspension. I would, in all likelihood, use a pretty much standard pair of parallel leaf springs- with either some hefty front half stacks (ala the old Chrysler "supertock" springs) or what you can easily find and a pair of traction bars.
Back to having to use the stock frame now..... if you have the ability to do so, build a "space" frame and then fit your stock frame and cross members through and into it and weld it into place .... or get a bit creative and bolt it to a lot of mounting tabs etc. The rules do not say that the stock frame has to be THE BACKBONE OF THE STRUCTURE..... OR anything but THAT IT HAS TO BE THERE! Determining the stock location would, in my mind, simply be at the points of body mounting to the original points on the frame.....
If you want to get looking at a few of the really fast Gas Coupes/Sedans (the ones that can go 300 mph)... those cars have A LOT of extra tubing and shassis built into them.... they are unibody cars, yes, but.... if it is not a question of competitive advantage and to us, extra chassis it not exactly a secret to going faster unless it is put there as ballast (but ballast IS allowed!).... build your chassis with all of the modern tricks you can think of.
Geez, this is starting to sound like fun!.... where do you live in relation to me?.... I kind of like to BUILD that chassis!
Good luck and I hope I see you in tech!
-
Thanks for the answer. That was what I was looking for.
BTW, I live in Texas. Heck of a drive for you.
C. J.
-
Yes, it certainly would be a long drive.... I bought my Dodge diesel on ebay.... out of Dallas area.... I flew down to pick it up ..... and it was a 3000 mile drive home..... of course, though, I went over to SoCal and then up the west coast, which added several hundred miles to the trip.
Anyway, I am sitting in a hotel suite in a town called Sept-Iles.... in Quebec, Canada.... and I sure wish there was a Bonneville racer here that I could help with building a chassis on my days off..... I am advising and consulting to a company called CLIFFS Natural Resouces, a global producer of Iron ore pellets andmetallurgical coal and who is the owner of one of the iron ore processing complexes here in Sept-Iles. I will be here until late March.
-
Boy. If there was somebody hot to help build a modified Pickup around here, he wouldn't have to ask twice. Or barrow a C/CGAlt. Or even fool with an old Dodge banger OHV conversion. Jack grabs everybody who wants to help.
-
Boy. If there was somebody hot to help build a modified Pickup around here, he wouldn't have to ask twice. Or barrow a C/CGAlt. Or even fool with an old Dodge banger OHV conversion. Jack grabs everybody who wants to help.
Rich, you just tell me where to put the motor mounts in the lakester we [plan on playing woth more than one engine anyway! :cheers:
-
C. J. I'm on the Coupe Sedan rules committee for SCTA, from what you said you want to do on your truck sounds legal to me, and like you said safety if the object of improvements to a old frame. You mentioned that the modified truck class is the same rules as Gas Coupe so sounds like you should have good legal build for Bonneville or El Mirage. take care, Dave :roll:
-
Fast, that's interesting. Cliffs is headquartered here -- Marquette county, Michigan. Cliffs is in Ishpeming and has been the largest employer in the area for oh, 150 years or so. What are you doing up there? Making pellets? Or is Sept-Isle a natural ore plant? Just curious. . .
-
Slim... I work for a company called Metso (Minerals Div) ... Metso is an OEM supplier of crushers, ball mills etc. I am a field service engineering technician. I am at the Cliffs Sept-Iles plant overseeing the rebuild of one of their ball mills (of which they have 9).... the operation here is an iron ore pellet processing plant. The mine itself is about 400 miles away.... the ore is transported by railroad.... and Sept-Iles is a city of about 30,000 pop. and on a harbor in the Gulf Of St Lawrence. They load the ships directly here .... the loading facility is about 2000 feet from the site field office. I can't quite see them loading the ships but I can sometimes hear it.
-
In modified pickup would a three inch chop be legal with the a pillar leaned back around an inch?
-
No. 5.D.5 "unaltered in height, width or contour." How could you chop it and still conform to that rule?
-
Yeah, I just read that. I was just coming to say never mind. Thanks for answering.
Zenon
-
It would have looked pretty cool though!
-
Yes it would. It's to bad that they don't have Comp Pickup
-
This is why I was asking
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/international/100_2753.jpg)
But it is chopped 3" and the windshield is laid back about an inch. Of course, just imagine 3" more on that cab, I think it "looks" right this way
I am not versed on the rules at all but I gather that you have to be careful about shaving things as well, like door handles, blinkers, etc. depending on the class.
-
Nice truck. You could still run the truck as a "Time Only" entry or in the 130 or 150 classes of the USFRA. The Bonneville record for MP with a 350 engine is 224. What class were you thinking about and did you want to try to run record or just run for the for the runningof it?
-
I don't think I would run time only. To set up a vehicle to be "safe", and pass tech seems like a good amount of work and money. If I got hooked but had a vehicle that could not compete in a class, at any venue, that seems like a good way to get frustrated.
Is production just supossed to be just how it rolled off the assembly line?
This class is for 1972 and later American and Foreign made mid and mini sized pickup trucks with full stock bed, unaltered in height, width or contour with all panels mounted in original relationship to each other. Samples of allowed trucks include but are not limited to: Chevrolet S-10, Ford Ranger, Nissan and Toyota.
How about production mid/mini P/MP H, 1189cc, I would have to put the E1 back in to make it stock, it has a J13 now, gearing is restrictive as well
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1964%20datsun/datsun6.jpg)
or production coupe and sedan -/PRO D or classic category(or is production coupe in classic category?) 283 ci V8
this class is for American and foreign coupes, sedans, unaltered in height, width or contour, with all stock panels mounted in original relationship to each other. This category does not include cars properly classified as Sports or GT, such as foreign cars without rear seats suitable for continued adult occupancy. It does include Mustangs, Camaros, Barracudas, 1958 or later Thunderbirds, compacts, and other American cars of this type.
This car seems a bit large(?) to push through the wind
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20belair/BELAIR002.jpg)
Ok, enough daydreaming, need to go to work
-
If you were running in Production Mini/Midi Pickup you are allowed to change the rear end to what ever fits the space available to get what ever gear you want. Any Toyota engine built on the same bore centers/ bolt patterens as the OEM engine can be run. A 283 or other engine swap would put you in Mod Mini/Midi Pickup. There are a great number of possibility's for a Hi Lux in the Pickup classes at El Mirage and Bonneville. Pick a class. Make a plan. Go for it.
-
I wasn't thinking about putting a 283 in the Datsun L320, I was referring to the 1960 Bel Air sedan. The Bel Air has a stock 283.
So if you can use any engine with the same bore centers/bolt pattern in production coupe/sedan, something like my Bel Air, with a 283 SBC, if in engine class D, would be running against smaller coupes/sedans with up to 305cu engines.
The Datsun is a 1964. It has a J13 from a 66-71 datsun, the two engines share gasket sets so I think the engine would be okay as is then. I mean in terms of class. Now that I think of it, the J13 is a 1300, hence the "13".
Either way, I didn't mean to high jack this thread so I will think about it all and start a different thread.
-
A B120 Sunny would be much more aero.
Mike
-
Yeah, and I just realized that the production mid/mini class is for 1972 and later, 1964 is too early anyways! :|
-
I never owned or hotrodded a 59-60 Chevy but I knew of at least two cars and their owners who did.... the one that I recall most vividly was a black Belair 2dr hardtop that was supposed to have been an original 348 tri carb car.... it belonged to the older brother of one of my high school friends. The car had, at the time, a 409 with the tri carb set up and, later on, a 427.
It was a NICE car!
As my friend narrated the story of a high speed event during which he claimed to have been a passenger in the car, it was up to 140 mph on a stretch of freeway south of Vancouver where there are no on-ramps for about 5 miles.... it was actually a place where speed tests did occur.... (and may still be although the length of the stretch is now quite reduced due to a new freeway junction in the area) .... the back end of the car was getting light and loose.
His claim was that the horizontal fins, which looked SO COOL actually acted as lift devices ..... There should be some way of corroborating this as I am sure that the cars, during the years that they would have run in NASCAR back in the day, would have had a lot of corroborating evidence that such lift did occur. .... It would be something to think about if you did want to build the car into a LSR car.
-
If you were running a '60 Chevy with a 283 or a 302 or 305 you would be in C/Classic Production. Running against a 302 powered Monza with a 220 record. It would be very difficult to build a competitive car using a full sized sedan body.
-
Rich-Yeah, as I was reading the rules today and looking over the classes and kind of figured that. I did look up the record holders and googled images of their cars.
fastman- That may just be the case because I was looking at old nascar clips on youtube a couple weeks ago and I saw few 1959 or 1960 chevys. It is hard to see though.
-
How about a cheap Vega for Altered class?
-
All I can say to that would be that the records are pretty stiff in Altered class too!.....Same Monza and OUR Vega- depending on which class of Altered...
Now, don't get me wrong... the Vega has similar D/C numbers as a pre '82 Camaro with about 65% of the frontal area..... the Vegas and Monzas are probably two of the best CLASSIC coupe bodies available to run in the category.... it is just that the Cohns are running a pretty stout SB2 (and it's probably a SB2.2) and we are running a GM Big Chief.... about 840hp and 1000hp respectively.... we know we have several more mph in our combo.... Cohns probably do as well....
BTW, Rich.... is your Vega still legal for gas coupe?.... like.... does it have stock floor and "frame"? The pic you posted does not show the car as being as extensively modified body- (and front nose especially)-wise as ours is.
-
looking again at the pic though.... you have what appears to be SOME engine setback..... like - at least 10%.... the lack of engine setback and the presence of the stock "frame" is what allows Cohns to go back and forth to and from production, gas coupe and altered
-
Set back in Vega. Not legal for Gas Coup.
-
Rich.... the picture answers it all.... "nope!"....
Bitchin' motor though!.... that, to me is a "put under a glass coffee table top in my living room" type of motor!
-
$10,000 and you can do what ever you want with the whole thing. Chump change.
-
well, zenndog, there you have it.... about $3000 worth of wheels and tires there the 30 inchers on the back and the (what are they-24s on the front).... if you can get someone to part with them... a way cool motor that would look good in your rec room and everything else you need to go racing..... know what it takes to build a car .... there is probably some real good value here....
-
Speechless :-o, now my head is really spinning. I am going to bed, now I have some calls to make tomorrow aannd I have to change the timing chain in my Toyota PU this weekend. shheeeesh.
-
Rich- I think you mentioned that you were working on a modified PU, I would help you work on your truck if your serious. I am in Santa Cruz and usually have weekends free. By the way, I have a Studebaker 259 V8 from a 1960 lark.....That is a great price for your Vega, I can't afford even a great deal like that right now but I would be happy to help you put that 352 in your Studebaker PU.
By the way, I have a Studebaker 259 V8 from a 1960 lark.....
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/1960STUDELARK036.jpg)
-
So far I have a 374 bolted in with a 4 speed Ford top loader and nine inch. Mustang 2 front stuff. It kind of stalled there. I need to move some rolling stock to make room indoors for the truck. And I'm not really sure I have another one in me. Getting tired. PS I have a 170 out of a '63 Lark. Need company for your 259?
-
this thread got me going on the Diesel PP thread I have posted under B'Ville chat
-
Rich- Sure you do! Just say the word . If you have the inclination to think about it I will provide the muscle. 'Nough said. PS Yeah, the 259 is probably lonely. It was slated to go in this
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/100_3088.jpg)
(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn70/zenndog/1960%20studerat/100_3089.jpg)
Another car body modified to much for any of the classes that require stock sheet metal.
-
Originally, I had Modified Gas Roadster on the brain (any type frame allowed), so when I had the chance at the truck, I envisioned the 1968 Chevy SWB frame I have as a starting point. Newer frame, trailing arms, factory IFS and a wider main rail arrangement making it easier to mount a cage.
It would seem to me that the frame should be the best/strongest design available, within each competitors budget, for safety reasons. As long as the body panels and bumpers remain in the same relation to each other, the total frontal area and cd would remain the same, and that is the real hinderance or challenge to going fast. Making an old brick cut through the wind as efficiently is possible.
The frame just holds it all together. In a spin-out, roll or other sudden stoppage, I would rather have something more modern than 2 C-shaped pieces of 63 year old steel, in a narrow ladder arrangement, supporting my cage.
Maybe I shouldn't worry about it, like RichFox said, it is highly unlikely I will ever be in the impound. This is for fun and the experience, and while SCTA rules are the primary concern with this build, it will also see the Texas Mile and maybe one of the local 1/8th mile 'strips, after a 3rd member swap.
C. J.
Not sure where you are with this.... One thought about changing the suspension type: the rules for MMP say that the body cannot be modified from original or cannot be lowered over the frame (channeled or chopped) but say nothing about running the original suspension type. The rules for Production, however, do state that the original front and rear suspension "types" must be retained. Therefore, it could be inferred that in the "modified" class, which is the next step up in allowable modifications, the suspension type could be changed as long as it is attached to the original frame.