New Governing body for the fastest wheeldriven cars and bikes?

[kiwi belly tank]

Dude!! I don't know where you're getting your information from, nobody has gone 500 in a wheel driven vehicle.
 Sid.

[bbarn]

Sid...come on.... that is called a tongue in cheek statement...that is the whole point lol. It is so hard nobody has done it.

This is new territory and I believe what is driving the desire for changes.

[tortoise]

But an hour for not just the runs but servicing at the end of run one? . . . Nah, no pressure at all.

It's supposed to be hard.

[bbarn]

Has nothing to do with being hard. You try engineerig and building a vehicle capable of those speeds, that is hard.

The problem is the danger in rushing to beat a one hour clock and shorting yourself on safety.

What you are dismissing jovially as hard is really better described as deadly.

[tortoise]

I don't want to kill anybody.

[Polyhead]

I don't want to kill anybody.

You haven't spent enough time around me then!

[F104A]

I think it is reasonable to declare the maximum time between runs should be dictated by official sunup to official sundown. If you are going for an unlimited, absolute record, who cares if you change engines, tires, or whatever! If when you are trying to run over 500 with a wheel driven car or even faster with a thrust powered vehicle, we're not going to run when there is any significant wind, whether it be any point of the compass. If needed, modern technology can adjust the wind advantage or disadvantage for timing the run if that is the big concern. As for running two way, why? As Rosco pointed out, if you take 7 miles to run up and 3 miles to stop on your 10 mile course (which is about all we can find on dry lakes) then to run over the same measured mile, he only has 3 miles to accelerate. So what's the point? Al missed several opportunities in past years because of the FIA requirement for two way runs over the same mile. The answer is for the absolute speed records is to utilize GNSS timing and maybe lights as a backup if so desired. I for one have made a pass at a 100 ft wide trap at 500 from 5 miles back and it isn't easy to hit that target gate. With GNSS, there is no limit on the width of the timing traps and it is more accurate than lights anyway. I got into the 2 club with an average of 276 and some change but keeping that lakester in line was tough enough when you hit that wind drift coming off the mountains at the 4 mile. Try it with a beast making over about 50,000 hp with only 2 degrees of steering. I vote for GNSS technology in the future for the unlimiteds. And that's my 2 cents!

[Malcolm UK]

Giving time to allow a team to go over the car with a fine tooth comb to ensure their safety is reason enough to make the change. If you search the historical record (*cough* Malcom UK could share i am sure *cough*) on speed attempts on water you will find at least one driver that went without refueling on his return run to save time. It was a poor decision based on the outcome.

With all that is going on in trying to make a high speed pass the last thing we should be doing is putting an undue burden on competitors that may cause them to shirk safety in favor of a record attempt.

As I was named, let me tell you all that the Coroner investigating the death of Donald Malcolm Campbell received expert evidence. That evidence did not give the reason for the crash of K7 as being 'too little fuel'. The practice of making two runs with the boat on a single fuel load had been made on Christmas Day (and two days following) and when the boat was in a different configuration in the fifties many times back to back runs were made.

If wheeldriven record breakers do not want to make an attempt a true "team effort" - I loved your description of the Burklands, Slim - then why not apply to the FIA, through one of your countries affiliated associations, for there to be a second hour for safety checks on wheeldriven vehicles? [I am in contact with Rob on fb].   

Having watched UK and Australian drag racing teams service a top fueller between rounds, even those record breakers using Nitromethane fuel should be able to safely achieve servicing checks and an oil change in two hours. 

[kiwi belly tank]

Sid...come on.... that is called a tongue in cheek statement...that is the whole point lol. It is so hard nobody has done it.

This is new territory and I believe what is driving the desire for changes.

Nice save!

[typo41]

Just for my little add to the mix. Chick and I were at the start line when Nolan went through the 'O' start line at speed the first time. It was exciting and luckily that year the cars were held in pre-stage. But to see a car go by, closely, at 250 or so was something I will not forget.

[kiwi belly tank]

I think it is reasonable to declare the maximum time between runs should be dictated by official sunup to official sundown. If you are going for an unlimited, absolute record, who cares if you change engines, tires, or whatever! If when you are trying to run over 500 with a wheel driven car or even faster with a thrust powered vehicle, we're not going to run when there is any significant wind, whether it be any point of the compass. If needed, modern technology can adjust the wind advantage or disadvantage for timing the run if that is the big concern. As for running two way, why? As Rosco pointed out, if you take 7 miles to run up and 3 miles to stop on your 10 mile course (which is about all we can find on dry lakes) then to run over the same measured mile, he only has 3 miles to accelerate. So what's the point? Al missed several opportunities in past years because of the FIA requirement for two way runs over the same mile. The answer is for the absolute speed records is to utilize GNSS timing and maybe lights as a backup if so desired. I for one have made a pass at a 100 ft wide trap at 500 from 5 miles back and it isn't easy to hit that target gate. With GNSS, there is no limit on the width of the timing traps and it is more accurate than lights anyway. I got into the 2 club with an average of 276 and some change but keeping that lakester in line was tough enough when you hit that wind drift coming off the mountains at the 4 mile. Try it with a beast making over about 50,000 hp with only 2 degrees of steering. I vote for GNSS technology in the future for the unlimiteds. And that's my 2 cents!

When you say Al missed several opportunities, that's true, we did because of breakages or time out's but that's how the previous record was set that we were trying to break. How is breaking a previous world record going to hold any credibility if it's not run under the same parameters? This is the same reason the Budwiser Rocket effort became a "whatever" run.
I'm all for a governing body other than FIA but you can't change the rules half way through the game.
It's like I just broke you lap record dude..... no you didn't, yesterday they took out the chicane on the back straight away, it's not the same course any more.
My liner is built around being able to get the job done within the existing rules so that any record I click off will be credible within SCTA, USFRA, DLRA or FIA & nobody in the heavy hitting streamliner world has less money than me & no sponsor's.
  Sid.    

[tortoise]

From the WLSRA protocol:

 ". . .the  most attractive aspect with a direct impact on safety – the ability to capture the fastest mile within the entire length of each run. "

So you set off this firecracker, and it runs in any direction, and the start and finish lines are defined after the fact. This looks bogus.

How would  it be unsafe to define two parallel lines a mile apart, and use the last data point before and the first after for your average speed through the mile? This gives you a virtual trap, with a finish line you can put wherever you think is safe -- before the run.

[WhizzbangK.C.]

So let's see if I understand this as far as the "measured mile" being a moving target and adding an aspect of safety.

I have a car that can go faster than anything ever built before. I have a course with 10 miles of good, hard, flat ground. At one end of the course is another 20 miles of flat, but soft or not so good ground. At the other end of the 10 miles is a sheer rock face with a public road running along the bottom. I can find no other practical course at this time. Also, my car can "safely" run up to top speed in 7 miles, and stop in 2 as long as nothing goes wrong.

With the current requirements there is no way that I can possibly make a safe return run, because I have no emergency run out area. I have all the room in the world to run in the direction away from the cliff, however. I can make one down run, tow back to the start line, and make another run to backup and verify the performance, but it won't count under FIA or FIM rules because they require runs in opposite directions over the same measured mile.

 This means that given the performance parameters of my theoretical car (7 miles to accelerate, one mile trap, and then sufficient emergency run out room to stop) I would need to find a course that is at least 15 miles of good surface. The new organization's rules make it possible to run on a 10 mile course vs 15. The extra time allows for a tow back to the start line and safe preparation for the backup run. Seems like positive things to me. 

I know some folks are going to have hurt feelings because they feel like their toes are getting stepped on and their kingdoms are being challenged, but really, that's a constant progression of things in the world. Fight the status quo, change it, or go around it and let it catch up. The sun comes up tomorrow and we try again. 

[kiwi belly tank]

When it all boils down to it, my opinion is only that, an opinion. When it comes to wanting to run against an existing world record, an SCTA record or what ever record, I will only run where that record will be recognized & under the approved rules. Otherwise I will only be making shakedown runs & maybe getting a few Kudos.
  Sid.     

[bbarn]

Giving time to allow a team to go over the car with a fine tooth comb to ensure their safety is reason enough to make the change. If you search the historical record (*cough* Malcom UK could share i am sure *cough*) on speed attempts on water you will find at least one driver that went without refueling on his return run to save time. It was a poor decision based on the outcome.

With all that is going on in trying to make a high speed pass the last thing we should be doing is putting an undue burden on competitors that may cause them to shirk safety in favor of a record attempt.

As I was named, let me tell you all that the Coroner investigating the death of Donald Malcolm Campbell received expert evidence. That evidence did not give the reason for the crash of K7 as being 'too little fuel'. The practice of making two runs with the boat on a single fuel load had been made on Christmas Day (and two days following) and when the boat was in a different configuration in the fifties many times back to back runs were made.

If wheeldriven record breakers do not want to make an attempt a true "team effort" - I loved your description of the Burklands, Slim - then why not apply to the FIA, through one of your countries affiliated associations, for there to be a second hour for safety checks on wheeldriven vehicles? [I am in contact with Rob on fb].   

Having watched UK and Australian drag racing teams service a top fueller between rounds, even those record breakers using Nitromethane fuel should be able to safely achieve servicing checks and an oil change in two hours. 

I knew you would have the detail!

I was thinking in what I had seen on it the boat was light from failing to refuel and that was attributed as the cause of the accident. Is it possible it was Cobb that had that issue or are the documentary sciences (<-pronounced "History Channel Editors") just inaccurate in their reporting?