New vintage flathead four cylinder class proposed

[V4F STR 60]

PS ~ Bobby, I'm sorry for screwing up your post 

[indymike]

I'm not sure, but I think I know what Bobby G. was saying in his first post. Provide an ENTRY LEVEL class for new racers (or old) to build a car with their two hands. (The lakester class would be ideal). Learning how to follow the rule book on construction practice, learning from other racers on "how it's done" at the salt and so forth. In other words, the basics. From this level they would be a little more ready to transition to other classes. (ie. blower explosions, spins, torn up seat upolstery, etc.). My wife's Buick will probably go 120 mph but to go across the salt in an open wheel car with an open (or not) cockpit with rock hard suspension and your butt inches from the ground is a lot of fun. The only thing I can see that might dampen this idea would be a shortage of blocks and cranks (Ford). I don't know about Willys stuff but there just might be enough out there (non Ford) to make it happen. Something to kick around anyway.
Indymike

[desotoman]

- It seems like a lot of the support for this class is coming from people who have never once competed at an SCTA event (or aren't even SCTA members)

 


Tom G.

[Milwaukee Midget]

Well, if the intent is indeed to set it up as an entry level class, a pre ’35 flathead banger formula would not be the way to go.  An entry level class would use something more commonly available with less esoteric parts and problems to overcome.

No, this is more about tradition than entry level.  I support that idea, but I don’t buy the argument that it would be less costly.  A maximized EFI Banger with a crank trigger and data acquisition vs. a mechanical fuel injection set up with reversed ports and a dual point Mallory?  Given the advancements in recent years, the future projection on the cost of these two different set-ups is clearly in favor of the EFI motor.

Software is getting cheaper by the hour whereas the cost of a mechanical fuel injection setup and a custom cam grind is tied to the labor needed to make it.  There are few suppliers, and the demand is low and diminishing daily.

Think about the cost of vintage sports car racing and Formula Vee.  As they get older, they get more expensive, and increasingly so when the class requires “period correct” parts or equivalents.

I think you’d be fooling yourself into thinking that this would be a cost saving measure.   

[NathanStewart]

Pete, comment about losing records is merely to point out that people have lost records in the past because of rule changes.  Wasn't suggesting that your records were at risk.  

Like I keep saying, all four of the four rules come into play.  Rule 2 says no computers except for data collection and rule 4 was meant to allow for any non-computerized ignition (mag, distributor, cdi, etc).  I know this because the Committee Chair told me that this was his intention (he was the one who changed the wording) and his reasoning for writing the rule that ways it's written was that people would read and apply the four rules together.  After seeing that people have tunnel vision and have zoned in on "any" and completely forgetting that rule 2 still applies, I have submitted my proposal so that it can be undeniably clear.  

You know that "tech" doesn't check for class legality.  You can go through tech a million times with a car that's completely illegal for any particular class and so long as it passes safety tech, you can run (ala T/O).  It is not and never has been an inspectors job to class anyone's car for them.  Kiwi is tech and his policy is to refer questions to appropriate personnel.  I have no idea what authority Jolliffe has in telling you what's legal or not and yes, even Dan has made mistakes before (he is human after all).  BTW I submitted a rule proposal that would require that class/category committees take a more active part in checking cars/engines for legality before records are certified which should greatly reduce the chances of a record being questioned or protested.  This whole thing is a pretty good example where something like this would have been helpful to everyone involved.  

There is no recorded use of turbochargers in our form of racing until well into the 60's.  The era which the vintage engine category most closely targets is a bit older than that.  I don't foresee turbo's ever becoming legal for use on vintage engines in vintage bodies regardless of them being used on a race car a hundred years ago.

The rule isn't being changed, only clarified.  Do I sound like a broken record yet 'cause I feel like I saying the same thing over and over.  Anyways, the point of all the "retro-active" rules in the V4F guide is to draw a line and finally say what's allowed and what isn't otherwise you'd be seeing engines that had zero resemblance to their predecessors (it was starting to happen).  Think of that guide as a means for protecting you and other competitors from those who think that building a vintage banger means completely hogging out the inside of a block and only using the exterior as an outer shell.  Your ignition system may do more than what you're using it to do but you still gotta pump your engine or pull your head to verify displacement.  I don't think they'll start accepting someone's word of honor as being good enough although I'd entertain any suggestions you might have for policing how everyone's ignition system works.  

Nonetheless, I still think vintage should be vintage and a lot of others think it should be too.  Anyways, it's late, I'm tired, and my only car got rear ended and totaled today.  I'm leaving it up to the clubs to vote on.

[NathanStewart]

- It seems like a lot of the support for this class is coming from people who have never once competed at an SCTA event (or aren't even SCTA members)

 


Tom G.

Tom, there's a lot of support for this on the HAMB and its coming from people who do not race.  While everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion and are more than welcome to support the idea as much as they want, SCTA members and especially those members who actually run in the particular class in question are really the ones who will decide what goes or what doesn't.  You could have all the outside support in the world but if your fellow SCTA members don't like it, it won't fly.  That's what my point was.

[Dr Goggles]

- It seems like a lot of the support for this class is coming from people who have never once competed at an SCTA event (or aren't even SCTA members)

 


Tom G.

Tom, there's a lot of support for this on the HAMB and its coming from people who do not race.  While everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion and are more than welcome to support the idea as much as they want, SCTA members and especially those members who actually run in the particular class in question are really the ones who will decide what goes or what doesn't.  You could have all the outside support in the world but if your fellow SCTA members don't like it, it won't fly.  That's what my point was.

I don't have a dog in any of the fights goin on here. I made my point about it being easy to administer a chapter "unofficially" because it will satisfy those who have an interest, whether they are racing or not.There is a lot of interest in the rosy view of forties and fifties styled salt cars and when there is a huge community of quite pedantic hot-rodders on boards like the HAMB of course there will be a lot of interest in a period correct banger tank class,but as for making it a class? The closer you get to it the harder it is to define. So, P38? open cockpit? because as someone said earlier what happens when Jack shows up with a Nebulous car and a class legal motor?

 Our tank has a 1990's era passenger car engine and is built from a tank that ( as far as we know) no-one had used before, we weren't ever going to try and build a period correct piece but I have every admiration for those that do. However, personally I see a purity in lakesters and liners that is lessened when the rules become more complicated. To me the anything goes credo is the main appeal in special construction. I think that was what Bill Burke thought.

BTW Indymike , a bellytank sure ain't "entry level", you have to be committed (X2) to build your own car from scratch, and none of this, is cheap.

[johnneilson]

All;

"low cost racing" is an myth, period. We spend more than we can afford to serve this addiction, drugs are for the smart folks.

Rules are written to try and entice as many folks as possible. This is wrong in my opinion, it leaves too many loopholes for interpretation and then starts the creep and then folks start proposing another class.

IMHO, this is what I would do, write a set of rules for a single brand/design motor, ie. Ford Banger.
Detail out a set of rules with dimensions, and make it simple to tech.
Carb only, model no. xxxxxx
Ignition, any dist triggered by points only (single or dual)
Crank assy 3 bearing only pressurized and inserted allowed max journal dia xx.xx
Piston must have x rings, min width xx.xx, must have slotted/slit skirt.
Rods, no Ti, must be xx.xx center dist inserted allowed.

While this may seem too restrictive, it serves to allow for anyone who wants to enter the game with somewhat competitive equipment.

The best racing I ever was involved with was this way, simple to tech and laid out for all to be competitive with.

Currently my V4 lakester has been to tech and is awaiting dyno time to baseline the motor. My goal to be at the salt next year.

Best of luck, John

[Tman]

Nathan, you are right about a fair amount of interest in vintage styled tanks (didn't we go through this discussion last year?). Our lakester is going a different direction so my interest here is from the sidelines as we are only running a vintage engine. I love tradtional belly tanks so am interested in what goeas on. It was very cool last year to see the amount of tanks on the salt.

[V4F STR 60]

OK, I'm back at it, and will try to get back to Bobby's original point without straying.

Bobby,

I completely appreciate your, and others, desire to run a totally historic engine/chassis package.  It is guys like you that inspired us to get into the V4F game.  I have pictures of your stuff all over my garage wall, your new vintage Indy inspired roadster is my screensaver, and I love what you guys do, and the class with which you do it.  I also completely understand your quest to keep it pure, especially since you own a vintage speed shop that your tank is the calling card for.

Getting a 100 MPH Hop Up shirt on the first-ever drive of our car was a thrill and honor I will never forget.  When we built our car, I told my friends "I will happy if it runs, stoked if it doesn't blow up, and elated if it goes 100 MPH".  But, if speed is like crack, then records are like heroin, and things change.  Once happy with 100 MPH and a shirt, our new goal is to be the first V4F roadster to 150... so maybe meth is a better analogy.

I truly think there is room for both types of racers in vintage classes.  If you look at the growing success of Bonneville in the past few years, no one can argue that much of that has been spurred by the HAMBers, traditional rodders, and retro-vintage enthusiasts.

But, that being said, the ultimate goal of landspeed racing is to set records, so I don't know how those two goals can jive in the same class.

That being said, I also struggle with how one doesn't run into the same rule problems with the new class down the road.  Going faster and setting records will always be the goal, which requires constant tweaking and R&D, which will ultimately raise eyebrows, and make some feel the need to further restrict innovation.

The reality is that within the parameters of the existing V4F rules, several cars have raised the stakes in the last three years.  Like I said in an earlier post, for three Montana hicks working out of two car garage with a one-off Dodge motor to stay competitive against the likes of Joe Bogoshian and H&H has become a full-time endeavor... not to mention an extremely inspiring challenge.  I'll get back to my anti-Dodge conspiracy theories later.

Good luck in your quest.

Pedro

[modelAsteve]

I sent a personel e-mail to Bobby a few days ago; but feel the need to post my thoughts on here for all to see. I have am the guy that drives the model A truck around cleaning the out houses and picking up the trash. I don't need to have any more participants and spectators! I also have a large pile of parts to build a car that fits this  discussion. I will run a roadster at the USFRA meet in the 130 Club. With very simple and almost affordable rules I can build and run a car on the Bonneville salt flats. $150 for five runs! They run go carts, lawn mowers, bar stools, 36 hp VWs. The car must be "streetable" and for 2 or more people. Sorry, the lakesters are out. We can police our own rules. We needed rear engined roadsters like we need another 500 entries at Speed Week. They did it right. Built and showed up with 3 or 4 cars and ran time only and said to the board "we are here and ready to run". Take a look at the USAFRA 130 Club!

[Bobby Green]

A big thank you to everyone on here that chimed in with your honest opinions !  It's discussion groups like this that really help work out a lot of bugs and get an idea of the opinions of the majority.  I tend to live in my own antiquated world and forget sometimes what's happening around me so it's a good resource for me to hear your thoughts.
  I realize after reading everyone's post that the SCTA REALLY doesn't need or want to deal with another V4 class, and with out the support of the Stewarts and Creel and others it will never pass, so I will be pulling my application before Saturday so I don't waste the boards time.

 However !,...  Since the door to this has been open, and there is some serious interest being shown, I would love to see sometime in the future an "Historic" class of land speed racing, either official or not that rewards the folks that do build a V-8 60 bellytank, or a V4F narrowed T-bucket, or a Packard straight 8 Indy car etc. with pre-1950 technology in mind.   I'm just throwing it out there, and if anybody in the SCTA likes the idea for the future, I'd love to help.

  Well, like I said, Thank you again everyone, now I gotta go and find out how Turbos and EFI work.  haha   See you on the salt !

[Stan Back]

"V-8 60 bellytank, or a V4F narrowed T-bucket, or a Packard straight 8 Indy car etc."

I'd love to see any and all of them run, too.  But they don't need a class (or probably even three classes for the ones mentioned).

But there is a class -- T.O.  And, believe it or not, the tech officials even bend the rules a little with speed limits when it comes to a Time Only entry approximating an existing class.  I could be wrong, but I don't remember anyone completely turned away at SpeedWeek.

So if someone wants to run an historic vehicles (and meets basic safety requirements), they can.  But, let's be honest -- you build a car to current safety requirements and it's hard to make it look historic if you look closely.  They don't want anybody to be thrown clear any more -- clear to Wendover.

Stan

[desotoman]

- It seems like a lot of the support for this class is coming from people who have never once competed at an SCTA event (or aren't even SCTA members)

 


Tom G.

Tom, there's a lot of support for this on the HAMB and its coming from people who do not race.  While everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion and are more than welcome to support the idea as much as they want, SCTA members and especially those members who actually run in the particular class in question are really the ones who will decide what goes or what doesn't.  You could have all the outside support in the world but if your fellow SCTA members don't like it, it won't fly.  That's what my point was.

Nathan,

Thanks for the reply. I thought you were talking about the people who had replied on this board and that is why the 

Tom G.

[V4F STR 60]

Any word on yesterdays meeting?