El Mirage

[PorkPie]

what's next

[JackD]

what's next

Next will be a slap on the other cheek.
The bad will be remembered long after the good.

THE END (sorta)

[OhioFatboy]

protest denied thats a bunch of horses**t !!!

[RichFox]

Looking at the SCTA web site I see that Rick's record has been changed from red (Certified) too black (Pending). For my two cents worth, If Dan says the tag motor was cold that settles it.

[dwarner]

The record will have to be changed back to red. See below:

All,

 

As Dan has stated below the first item (Traction Control) of the protest was scratched out and initialed by Jim Knapp leaving only the two the items concerning the addition of a second engine.

There are additional items that also should be brought to the attention of the board that were not mentioned in Dan?s short synopsis below that may be germane to this protest. The first item is that the action that the protest is looking for is ?Remove Record? and the second is that the ?Protest? was not made on an official protest form.

 

The protest was written on a ?Petition for Rules Change or Clarification? Form. I bring this to your attention because Section 1.I states ?Any deviation from the protest procedure will be considered as an invalid protest?. It could be argued that since the incorrect form was used to submit the protest that the ?procedure? has been deviated from therefore invalid. (I have no opinion on that)

 

As for the second engine not having a fire system?. I did not observe a fire system however, the vehicle did pass inspection and the inspector may have missed it or not have required it as the second engine was located/attached at the rear of the streamliner in its own metal containment box and not within the body shell. (My opinion is that I have not been a party to nor have I heard of a record being removed for an infraction of a safety related rule).  

 

The final part of the protest is ?2nd engine added did not run to increase cubic inches. Engine did not contribute to run?.  My observation was that the engine was fully functional, connected to a fuel system, designed and installed to ?run?. The rule book has several sections that offer guidance for a determination as to the ?legality? of this second engine and there are as follows:

Section 2.A ?Only Streamliners and Unlimited Diesel Trucks MAY use more than one engine at a time?.
Section 5.A ?Innovation is Unlimited? in the special construction class.
Section 5.A ?Cars in this class shall have at least four wheels, but they need not be arranged in a rectangular configuration?.
 

Both Alan Fogliadini (Technical Co-Chairman) and I inspected the vehicle at the lake bed after the protest. I also had inspected the vehicle immediately after the run with Dan Warner and observed the discovery process in which it was determined that the engine had not started (or fired) during the run. Much discussion and Q&A followed with the contestant and the ?Technical Committee? members that were present. As Alan and I are the Co-Chairman of the Technical Committee we decided based on our observations and our interpretation of the rule book to recommend to the board that the protest be denied. As a follow up we also wanted to run it by the special construction committee chairman John Bjorkman for his opinion prior to submitting our ?final recommendation? to the board. I had a long discussion with John today and he concurred with our initial assessment that no rules had been violated in his opinion. So at this point (although we have 30 days to make a recommendation to the board) the technical committee will recommend that the protest be denied.

I would like to submit our recommendation to the board this Friday at the meeting and will unless additional information or interpretation becomes available that would cause a material change to what we have observed to date.

 

Lee Kennedy, Technical Co-Chairman

As the pharohs used to say .."so it is said, so it is written...", or something like that. I'll have to watch The Ten Commandments again.

DW

[Tom Bryant]

I don't have a dog in this fight, but I want to make a comment about this. First, I am for ingenuity and it is rampant with this team. I applaud all that they have done.

I remember a similar situation back in the early sixties with Gary Cagle's Studebaker. He added a electrically operated cabin pressurizer to the engine and entered the Supercharged Class. There was considerable conversation about this, but it was allowed. It was functional and know one knows whether it really helped the speed. Many years later, I questioned Gary about it and he said that the blower actually did produce  boost. Regardless it was allowed to stand because it was a functioning device attached to the engine's intake as a blower should be.

If I understand what has been said so far about this situation, it sounds questionable whether this was an engine that was capable of producing power. It is said that it was cold which indicates that it was not running.

Apparently, the engine was added to change classes, it would seem to me that it had to be capable of running and propelling the car.  If it was engaged in the power train during the run, it seems to me that it would not matter whether it was running or not. However, If there is no way to know or it was not engaged during the run, it should be disqualified.

Tom

[JackD]

For a number of reasons it could never have run the way it was installed.
A number of required mechanical features were never  installed or connected
that would allow the extra motor to ever start.
Another prominent entry was in no way cheating but wrote the wrong
number to indicate the class.
It was properly classes and identified in every respect but the board ruled
 to take all his points away for that event.
It is those types of things that are not soon forgotten but will come back
to haunt you.
"Forgiveness is easier to get than permission."

[Glen]

My question is why wasn't it installed for inspection. Any simple over sight could have had bad results. What if something wasn't connected and the one wheel box came loose and caused the liner to go out of control. Was the tire rated for 200 mph, did it have 1" lug nuts. All of this needs to be addressed and considered for safe operation. If the motor was cold and not assisting to driving the vehicle as well as throttle control, fuel shut off etc. I don't think it was legal. I think this needs to be reconsidered by the contest committee be fore any record is given out.

[JackD]

Since the motor required oiling in addition to a fuel supply, where did it come from ?
The motor was not running at the start and was in fact out of gear.
A shifter and or a clutch connection might have really helped but it was not to be.
The tire was a Goodyear 5 inch that was designed for momentary use at
speed on the front of a Dragster.
 Does it say anywhere it can be used in a drive position at any speed ?
Did it help ?
Sure it did, it helped SCTA to look like a fool.

"When you look like a fool, chances are that you are and you can expect
to be treated as such."

[1212FBGS]

you brought up a good point jack... the dummy motor was a 2 stroke requiring a premix of oil or it will seize especially if the motor is run at wide open throttle for 1.3 miles!!!!!! If the motor was fed fuel from the fuel injected front motor, at 65psi to the rear carb, the needle and seat would be over powered and spraying fuel everywhere (fire hazard). The carb of the 2 strokes only stand 4psi. And i am absolutely positive that those dragster front runners were never meant to be a drive wheel on the rear of an 1000lb+ vehicle. I agree with you Jack, some one puts a incorrect name on there entry (no competitive advantage) and looses there points, and some one else installs a dummy motor (no competitive advantage) and gets away with it. One wrong is wrong and the other wrong is right!.... this whole thing is wrong!...
Kent

[joea]

.......is it required that all available engines be operated
for the entire course length....ie 1.3 miles.........?

perhaps it would be desired to utilize all available displacement
in a fashion that facilitates the designers plan...........

perhaps one would wish to only utilize a certain percentage of
available displacement at strategic points along the race, ie
acceleration equals zero....feed in the 0.8 n-m force to rear...

or rear end oscillation exceeds x frequency....feed in 0.8 n-m
stabilizing force so as to enable another 10% throttle from
main engine.....

if someone utilized the engine-management tech akin to what is available
in production cars.......ie such as trimming in or out 2 cylinders at
at time as acceleration (our power consumption) dictates.............

........are you penalized for running the course with 6 of 8 available cylinders and achieving a record.......?

as far as the cold engine....(and lack of apparent standard oiling)....I think it was the cryo-genic treated
internal parts in corporation with anti-friction coatings.....methanol (or ERC gas legal a8 c with very high convective cooling coefficent)....
and enhanced intercooling fog distribution from the dry-ice...and h2o reservoir present on the vehicle.........and judicious usage of one cylinder at a time at 1/8 to 1/4 revolution pulsing........
with spark timing and fuel management that facilitated using only as much of the available displacement (and heat production) as needed..............to set the record............... the rate of convection...of 240+ mph late oct air moving over the most rearward engine...resulted in substantially reduced engine block external temp if evaluated by the primal hand touch testing parameter.........


Joe

[Glen]

Joe you been sniffing to much laughing gas. It's a stupid way of cheating in my book. Prove it is all functional or it ain't legal.

[KeithTurk]

I gotta tell you guys... I agree with Dan's assessment and Tom Bryants... thou the outcome of each are different...

If innovation is unlimited... you can't control the quality of the Cubic inches only if they exist...  same goes for, if it was cold or not... who cares, it was there... he toted it along... sure didn't make him have less cubic inches,  Fuel so on and so forth... all it says is that innovation is unlimited and how efficient that additional cubic inches are is totally irrelevant.  Unless you guys want to be like Nascar or something where they come and give you X restrictor plate.... or won't let you run a slow car because it's "not Competitive"

Fact is Rick came up with the cubic inches... added them however he got that done... and ran faster then the current record in that class...  Sounds like a record to me.

Keith

[joea]

Glen...........the rear wheel has recently been application specific.. closed course tested to over 246 mph with spectacularly positive results........

Kent, Rick was smart enough to regulate the fuel pressure and volume
down to such a  parameter as to not overflow the carbs and still make the
hp required to set the record......apparently............I am just going off of reports...from the net........

I hear all you guys.......and listen to what each says..........and appreciate
it as much as I can..........

I am seriously trying to keep the dialogue alive for whatever it is
worth..........

if a guy builds a liner with two big blocks on it.....and passes
tech........and sets a record....and at the
end of the run.......one of the two engines is cold........is it then
protested and disallowed...?

and or is the racer punishable for the actions/certification of legality
by the tech inspectors and their stamp of approval.......

Joe

[Glen]

Keith, I don't agree, it was not inspected as a total unit, it did not have all of the controls connected, the tire was a front tire not a driven 200 mph tire I wasn't there but I beleive the proteast to be valid. How can one or two inspect the vehicle if the so called add on was in the back of the trailer. If it was Joe Blow it damn sure wouldn't have passed. If anything maybe a 150 mph pass to check it out and make sure it wasn't a problem.
Just my opinion.