El Mirage

[JohnR]

Not trying to stir things up, just curious, how big was the motor added on to the back?

It was was an older air cooled (suzuki??) 500cc motocross bike engine. I think it was 499cc actual.

[Sumner]

What should happen to it?

Sorry John, but some of us don't have a vote, so we have to be observers and just need something to do .

I'm satisfied being a "non-voter" for now and I'm not complaining about not having a voice in the matter.  Maybe some time in the future I'll join a club.

c ya,

Sum

[JohnR]

What should happen to it?

Sorry John, but some of us don't have a vote, so we have to be observers and just need something to do .

I'm satisfied being a "non-voter" for now and I'm not complaining about not having a voice in the matter.  Maybe some time in the future I'll join a club.

c ya,

Sum

Hey Sum, you may not have an official vote but you are allowed to have an opinion! The point I was making was how do people think the existing protest be handled?

Regards,

John

[joea]

as with any controversy.....there is more to the story....

Jim......Kent.........im very appreciative of the dialogue....on
this, thank you for sharing it......I am a little less ignorant than
before....


Joe

[desotoman]

What should happen to it?

I have no dog in this protest dilemma, but I do have an opinion. I think that Rick's idea was phenomenal, and he gets an Triple A for his thinking and effort.

But I don't think it is in the spirit of the rules, to be able to bolt on a motor to a chassis just to be able to jump a class. I know it is the streamliner class and you are allowed to run more than one motor. I feel that if you are going to run more than one motor in your streamliner it should be built accordingly, and have a large enough engine compartment to accept all the motors you intend to run. But to just be able to bolt on a motor and extension to your liner, in my opinion is not in the spirit of the rules. That is how I would interpret it.

No different than bolting on a dummy blower to change classes. Which is not allowed anymore.

Tom G.

[1212FBGS]

tom
yes maybe back in the 80's someone ran a car with no throttle plates and controlled rpm by a kill switch. But not not anymore. let me ask this question, does anyone know of any motorsport where the vehicles motor have no throttle controll? and another question, How long do you think our insurance carrier will allow us to race unsafe vehicles that have no way to controll the throttle?  i dont care if any of you think no throttle control is safe but another guestion for those smarty pants "Do you think the insurance carriers who cover our fine sport would think no throttle controll is safe?" Throttle controll and mandatory return springs is not only for the safety of the racer and the spectator, but for the longivity of out sport.
'06 rule book page30 section 3j "redundant return springs are mandatory" there is even a box on the back of the tech form that needed to be checked. to run without one is illegal.

[NArias3]

everyone knows rick cheated to come up a class for points. and yes I said cheated cuz everyone knows that motor didnt work and couldnt work
Kent

KR-
Please refrain from speaking for "everyone".  Not all share in your perception.  I'm surprised you would call a fellow racer a cheater before they've been proven guilty - considering your history of defending suspected rule-breakers.

Nick 3rd.

[jimmy six]

Desoto...Not positive on your observation but in the 60', 70's and 80's, even now in one car I know of, some competitors used Cifford Clark type injectors which did not have butterflys. The barrel valve controls the fuel as it does with butterflys now and the fuel is what lets the engine idle.

The person may not have known how to correctly make it idle. A fuel shut off normally cuts off the running engine and there is always the spark. The duel springs would have been located on the barrel valve...J.D.

[desotoman]

The duel springs would have been located on the barrel valve...J.D.

JD, Thanks for telling me where the springs would go. You lost me on the barrel valve controlling the idle on an injector without butterflies.  I have never tried to run a engine with out some sort of airflow control.(butterflies) Without restricting the air how does one keep the RPM down, and not lean the heck out of the motor? I am just trying to learn something here. Thanks for any help.
Tom G.

[desotoman]

tom
yes maybe back in the 80's someone ran a car with no throttle plates and controlled rpm by a kill switch. But not not anymore. let me ask this question, does anyone know of any motorsport where the vehicles motor have no throttle controll? and another question, How long do you think our insurance carrier will allow us to race unsafe vehicles that have no way to controll the throttle?  i dont care if any of you think no throttle control is safe but another guestion for those smarty pants "Do you think the insurance carriers who cover our fine sport would think no throttle controll is safe?" Throttle controll and mandatory return springs is not only for the safety of the racer and the spectator, but for the longivity of out sport.
'06 rule book page30 section 3j "redundant return springs are mandatory" there is even a box on the back of the tech form that needed to be checked. to run without one is illegal.

Kent, you have very valid points and I really could not agree with you more. At the time I found it strange myself. The only reason I brought it up was that it had been done, so had precedent been set?
Tom G.

[1212FBGS]

hey tom
been done before does not make it right. 2 things can stop us from racing 1) not enough racers showing up to make it worthwile, and 2) no insurance company willing to insure us. i think we need to do whatever we can to not allow an unsafe vehicle to compete.
kr

[jimmy six]

fuel makes the engine run not air..at least at idle...from then on is a combo..actually it always is..but still if you cut the fuel the engine doesn't know any difference...Hey it works...but I still won't say who is currently using it...At least not here...

[JackD]

If a gas powered "PONY MOTOR" was used to drive various accessories
such as cooling, oiling, or electrical  devices and remove that load from
the drive motor, should it be counted in the size of the engine package if
 it met all the various required safety criteria ?

[1212FBGS]

yes, especially if the "motor" worked

[JackD]

Gee, if that is the case it sure makes the Suzi trailer accessory look dumb.
If you use the criteria "Would it drive the vehicle down the road alone?" look dumb also.
If a second legal motor really deloads the drive motor, it does contribute to getting the
 vehicle down the road and should be considered part of the total.