Rear Engined Comp Coupe

[Malcolm UK]

Having thought about the European vehicles that were 'rear engined' yet came with 4 seats and could become Comp Coupes.  
 
 Do the /CC rules permit placing the engine in front of the rear axle line (in fact to become mid engined) when originally the motor was behind the axle line?  
 
 Or is "original engine LOCATION" related to some defined point on the vehicle at which 'front' then becomes 'rear'.

[JackD]

It would seem the rule speaks to a limit that is allowed to set the engine back from the point it was originally installed.
 Setting it forward seems to be unlimited.
 I would say "Knock yourself out, and if you go fast, it will knock them out."
 SCTA might say something else.
 STILL YOUR BALL

[Glen]

Can they have rear steer as well

[LittleLiner]

Seems pretty clear to me that a rear engine comp coupe must have the engine in the "original engine LOCATION" as stated in the Comp Coupe rules in the paragraph that begins with the words "Other than top . . "  
 
 Common examples would be the original VW Beetle and the Chevrolet Corvair.  Your choices would be to convert the car to a front engine car meeting all the rules of any front engine Comp Coupe or run as a rear engine car with the engine in the original LOCATION, which was just behind the transaxle.  
 
 I think this becomes even more apparent when you look at the rules on driver location.  If you move a rear mounted engine forward from the original location then the driver would have to sit behind the engine and in front of the rear axle. In that case the maximum setback rules apply which would keep the engine at 50% or less of the wheel base from the front spindles to the forward most spark plug.  (who knows what that is for engines without spark plugs - e.g. Diesel) (:>)
 
 I'd say that JackD is correct about no limit on negative "setback", but that would only apply where you were allowed to setback and engine.  The rear engine location rules limit engine placement to the original (repeat - original) LOCATION.  They even print the word "LOCATION" in all caps to emphasize this.
 
 Off hand I am unable to name a mid-engine car that is/was common in the States except for those that would otherwise have to run in GT or MS like the Toyota MR2, Fiat X-19, Pontiac Fiero, Porsche Boxster etc etc.

[Dynoroom]

Originally posted by LittleLiner:
 [QB] Seems pretty clear to me that a rear engine comp coupe must have the engine in the "original engine LOCATION" as stated in the Comp Coupe rules in the paragraph that begins with the words "Other than top . . "  
 
 
 Liner you've made my point, the rules didn't allow for rear engine modified roadsters eather but we have them now, just like in the past. So if I build a rear engine Crosley and cry loud enough for a year maybe I can get a class too.

[JackD]

Don't upset the apple cart.
 Remember the new standard is build 1 car and whine 3 years.
 Lock in a soft record this year and sandbag next year.
 Don't forget, #1 is forever.
 Remember we are preserving last year's tradition for the moment.

[desotoman]

Jack, there are about 3 or 4 RE Modifieds ready to run that I have been told of. But it does still take 3 years of whine, and a petion with over 150 signitures on it.(SCTA-BNI members)
 
 Dynoroom, if you really want a rear engine comp. coupe, my suggestion would be to hire Ron Benham to build it for you. He is a master politican, and knows how to negotiate the subject. I would prefer he brought some cheese and crackers with the wine. LOL (wrong wine)
 
 Regards,
 Tom Gerardi

[JackD]

The soft minimums are their own reward.
 So I guess we should be looking for 150 or so entries ?
 Tell me again how many didn't sign it.
 Were the minimums listed with the classes when all the signatures were gathered, or was that a separate deal ?
 Whine the heck would anybody do that ?

[desotoman]

Jack, can't tell you how many did not sign the petion, as I have no idea how many people he asked. Maybe he only asked people he knew that would sign it? The petion only stated a "new class for rear engine modified roadsters". I don't remember anything other than that.
 
 But I will tell you that at World Finals in Oct. 2004, the time only T, #34 ran 243.576 in the 3rd mile. I don't know what size motor was in the car, but the minimum for the bonneville 200mph club for a C/Gas RMR is 240mph. So I agree with you this seems like a soft minimum.
 Regards,
 Tom Gerardi

[LittleLiner]

I am new to LSR even though I will be 59 next month.  But I have been involved in various forms of racing since my early teens in the late 1950s.  That said. . I am somewhat confused about the posts some make on this board concerning (1) the number of classes (they apparently think there are to many)and (2) the perception that there are to many open and/or soft records and that this somehow lessens the value of holding a record.
 
 So let me ask this.  If there are too many classes, which classes should be eliminated?
 
 Here are some possible suggestions. . . . .
 
 How about eliminating all the Truck classes?
 
 How about eliminating all engine classes smaller that class F?  
 
 Classic Category?  What?s with that anyway?  Dump the category?  
 
 Street Roadster - what a joke!  Basically a ?real? racing roadster with headlights and rear fenders.  Who needs the staging lanes clogged with those things?  
 
 Rear Engine Roadster?  Aren?t they just Lakesters with a variation on body style?  Dump them before they multiply.  
 
 GT?  Who cares about GT?  At least drop the Blown GT Cars.  
 
 Same goes for all Gasoline Classes in all categories.  Make any fuel legal in all classes, period!  
 
 Drop the AA engine classes and make the A class the unlimited size.  
 
 Ok I?ll cut a break for the vintage engine classes but limit the available body classes for vintage to FR, BFR, FALT and BFALT.  
 
 Diesel classes ? dump them!  Most would be gone with the deletion of all truck classes anyway.  
 
 Production?  Combine them with the ?Gas? Coupes!
 
 Electric, Steam and Turbine.  Dump them all.  When real performance production cars start to appear on the streets with Electric or Steam or Turbine engines then we might let them back in.
 
 Motorcycle Classes ? Drop all Production Classes.  Make all M class bikes Partial Streamliners.  Make all A class bikes ?Naked?.  Dump all sidecar classes.  If you need more than two wheels - race a car.  Minimum Engine class size 1000cc.  Only have a few push rod engine classes that fit the typical size Harley and dump all other push rod classes.
 
 Oh, one last thing.  Any remaining class that has a record or minimum of less than 200mph should be changed to a minimum of 200mph.
 
 Now that should make JackD and others happy.

[jimmy six]

Little Liner-You got it right. "1949". only no bikes.

[JackD]

The further you stumble forward, the tougher it is to back up.
 "Fraction Control" is your friend.
 Slow minimums won't set you free, but many are cheap and easy. How about yours ?
 Don't touch it you say ?
 SURE
 
  <small>[ March 29, 2005, 11:08 AM: Message edited by: JackD ]</small>

[desotoman]

LittleLiner said, "I am somewhat confused about the posts some make on this board concerning (1) the number of classes (they apparently think there are to many)and (2) the perception that there are to many open and/or soft records and that this somehow lessens the value of holding a record."
 
 The following is only my opinion. We should freeze the rule book, and not allow any more classes to be added. With all the classes we currently have, if you cannot find a class to build a car or bike in, something is wrong.
 
 As far as soft records go, I have no problem with someone holding a record in a class, even if it is 30mph slower than the next lower engine class. What does concern me is when a minimum is set lower than a car has aready run. Example: the minimum posted for the Bonneville 200 mph club in E/Blown Gas Rearengine Modified Roadster is 230mph. Yet the record set last year in E/Blown Gas Modified Roadster is 249.008. To me this minimum seems soft, and an easy way to get a 200mph hat. Hope this explains my views.
 
 Regards,
 Tom Gerardi

[LittleLiner]

Tom
 
 I hope no one actually believed that I really want to eliminate any class.  I don't.  I was just trying to make a point.  If there are too many classes, which one should or should not be eliminated.  
 
 I am working on a Gas Coupe that will be in a class that has (for now at least) an open record.  Frankly I picked the class because it would give me a shot of getting into the record book.  Even with my limited building and driving skills I imagine that something faster than zero mph is possible.  I don?t see where that hurts any other class record holder.  
 
 It is interesting that I haven?t heard (read?)anyone complaining about the occasional team that brings a car that can break a record.  They break the record with one driver, tune up a little and put another driver in the same car and bump the record up a touch.  So was it fair for the first driver to ?sandbag? a little leaving the door open for a second 2 club driver in the same car?  I don?t think it is any problem at all but it makes you wonder what is fair and what is not fair.
 
 Art

[Glen]

Theres always sand bagging and rent a rides. It's the real racer that comes back year after year to chase his/hers goal.