Bring back /exp class

[landracing]

Most of you probably don't know what the /exp class was at Bonneville. Neither did I until I received my copy of a 1970 rule book.
 
 This I think is the same of /TO (time only) class, but the wording is great for machines that don't have a class but further holds an experiemental class value. I just think the wording is great instead of /TO.
 
 The wording in the rule book was as follows.
 
 Experimemtal Category /EXP
 This catagory, in which no class trophies are awarded or records kept, is for experimental vehicles and contrivances which fit into no other category. Entrants herein must comply with all Safety Regulations.
 
 Jon

[jimmy six]

You are right Jon only the name has changed...If you look in internet results or the results sent out by the office you will see those listed in "Time Only". Some are long time competitors who have some srange ideas and are very welcome to run for time and they do meet or exceed the minimum safety requirements. A few show up every year from circle track venues and run. A trick 32 Ford coupe #200 of Dan Hostetter's has EXP written under his number for a "class"...The last 2 years rear engine modified roadster competited in this class....JD

[Dynoroom]

"The last 2 years rear engine modified roadster competited in this class....JD"
 
 Yep, now they have a class too, kinda a shame. Thats all we need is more classes. I don't mind the cars but we don't need to degrade the records anymore than we already have do we? I really enjoy looking at a '70's era rule book and seeing how tough it was to set a record.
 Mike

[desotoman]

Michael, how is adding a new RE Modified Roadster class degrading the records. What would you like to do? Just have one roadster class for all roadsters? Do you think that would really be fair? Or would you rather have a roadster that did not fit a class run in an EXP or TO Class.  Sorry, I don't understand your thinking.
 Tom Gerardi

[JackD]

This could get really nasty.
 At least the Sports Racing class is now called Gas Streamliner and most of that arguement is behind us.

[Dynoroom]

"Or would you rather have a roadster that did not fit a class run in an EXP or TO Class."
 
 Yep!
 64 new classes is what I mean Tom. Do you think we need them?

[DallasV]

I?m not sure why there is another class for rear engine modified roadster anyways. How I understand it was the RE modifieds were outlawed because people were getting killed and injured, not because of an unfair advantage. Back in the day a 200 mph RE modified could have a 70 inch wheelbase which turned out to be a dangerous combo. With wheelbase minimums on modifieds now why can?t RE?s run with the rest of them? I may be way off base here but I?m comfortable that way.
 
 Dallas

[Dynoroom]

Back in the day a 200 mph RE modified could have a 70 inch wheelbase which turned out to be a dangerous combo. With wheelbase minimums on modifieds now why can?t RE?s run with the rest of them? I may be way off base here but I?m comfortable that way.
 
 Dallas
 
 I think your right Dallas, Or how about they just build a lakester? Seems to me thats what they are building anyway.

[dwarner]

That's my thoughts also. If it looks like a lakester then it must be a laskester. I don't buy this heiratage crap for one second. When Ron Benham approached me a few years ago about a rear engine modified I told him the rules would be 90" wb, swing axle rear end, etc. Just like the pictures in the history books. His response? They are unsafe that way.

[desotoman]

Michael, I also agree, we don't need 64 new classes. But what is SCTA to do? I personally feel the RE Modified Roadsters have a distinct advantage over the current Front Engine Modifieds. Is it fair to put them in the same class? I don't think so. As long as you have people who have minds like Ron Benham's (with all due respect)you will always have this problem. Just my 2 cents.
 Tom Gerardi

[Dynoroom]

Tom, that was the point of this thread, TO or EXP. I beleave that currently there are 2 running rear engine modifieds and 2 or so being built (probably more now that they have a class)so why did this happen? All I know is adding 64 or so new classes delutes the achievement IMO. Ron has been known to do this before, good for him, free spirit and open mind but to make a class for a couple of cars, it's not me. I chose to build a front motored car, wouldn't mind running against the rear motored cars, but they're in another class. I hope the 200 club minimums are where they should be........ah but thats another thread.

[Glen]

Kinda makes one wonder that allowing trailer fenders on the rear wheels of a lakester makes it a streamliner. Sure don't look like one.
 
 Hell we have over 1835 motorcycle classes, whats a few more car classes. Besides I like rear engine roadsters.

[DallasV]

You know that primered cars have an aero disadvantage over painted cars, and there is the traction control issue, and many others. Could some day we see someone running for the illusive D/BFUPTCEFIWPREMR class record. That would be D Blown Fuel Unpainted Traction Controlled Electronicly Fuel Injected With Propeller Rear Engined Modified Roadster. What a great day that will be.
 
 Dallas

[JackD]

Whould the prop be required to suck or blow ?
 Think it thru Dallas ! j/k

[desotoman]

Michael, trust me you do not want to have RE modifieds in the MR class. I know I don't. Reason? When someone who thinks outside the box builds one to really go fast, the standard front motored MR will be left in the dust. Someone will figure out you can put the motor in sideways, use the torque of the motor to help traction, and belt drive a live axle, so you don't lose any HP. Also you don't need to add nearly as much weight to a RE modified over the rear axle as you do to a standard MR, which gives them another distinct advantage. Did not mean to get off the thread topic if you would like to discuss this more you can email me at desotoman@att.net.  Tom Gerardi