new 2011 rule changes

[saltfever]

Lateral movement:
The seat or roll cage structure shall provide restriction to lateral head movement of less than 2 in. per side inclusive of structure deflection 

Plain and simple . . . Please just tell me: HOW MUCH PADDING CAN I HAVE ON EACH SIDE?

[SPARKY]

would be intresing to know the two makes and models to be able to know just how much difference there is between 05 an 10

[Bob Drury]

  Sparky, about $500 I figure

[LittleLiner]

Some of the new rules wording intended to clarify issues can raise new questions. 

Looking at the new rule that talks about engine size . . . ."In classes where not all engine breaks are available, the smallest displacement class allowed is open to all engine displacements that fall within it and below it."

Hummm . . . Think about the Classic Category.  There are no Classic classes for engines smaller than engine Class F.  For example there is no  such class as H/CFALT.  In the past (I think) a car that is otherwise fully compliant with all the classic rules but running an engine smaller than Class F would run in the Modified Category.

So, under this new rule what category would a Fuel Altered classic car with a class H engine run in, F/CFALT or H/FALT, or either?

Just wondering . . .

Funny thing about this is that someone running a G or smaller engine in an F class Classic car can actually have a chance to set a record in Class F.   Looks like a case of "Running Up in Class" has broken out on the west coast. 

[saltfever]

I think that new engine break is referring to a Thermodynamic cycle other than Otto. It doesn't change anything for typical recip engines, no?

I just reread it and now I'm not sure. It looks like the entire Section 2 on Engines is speaking to nonreciprocating engines. First paragraph mentions nonreciprocating engines with some examples following. Fourth paragraph is about Omega Engines using a thermodynamic cycle other than Otto with all the breaks following. Then, all by itself, the sentence you mention. Is it referring to all of the above, or does it stand alone and refer to reciprocating engines as well?

If the latter, then can you run a XF,XXF, XO engine in Classic?

[jl222]

I just checked,,, the opening between my seats lateral head restraint (side to side) is 4.09 inches wider than my helmet.

So all I have to do is add a sliver of padding to be a 2" per side max movement.

Charles

  Charles does the padding and support  extend to the furthermost edge of the helmet and if it did how much room
will that leave you to get out?
  I believe that when the majority of SCTA and BNI members read this new rule and start to measure distance from
support to roll bar and realize that they will not be able to get in their vehicles with a hans device on [let alone get out]
the sh..t is going to hit the 10,000 cfm fan
 

                            JL222

[maguromic]

Saltfever, Not to go off subject, but that's one sexual picture in your avatar.  Tony

[saltfever]

I'm following your example, Tony and changing things up a bit. But I can't hold a candle to your avitar. You set a high very standard

[grumm441]

  I am about to "can opener" a hole thru the roof to get in and out of the car.  Maybe I can prefect the John Force "butt slide" coming out.
  The good news is that if you and I both lose 150 lbs., we may be able to egress the car in, oh, say two minutes give or take........................... Bob

So how do you get out if the car is on it's roof

  Otto VonBismark once said "the less people know about how sausages and laws are made, the better off they will be

Otto was also famous for saying "if the Herring was the only fish in the sea, it would still be the best."
and that's why they call them Bismark herrings.

Can we hear some complaining from the bike guys now 
 
Bill

Ahhh
Looking for stuff to complain about. Oh yes, racing tyres

G (bike guy)

[LittleLiner]

. . . . .  Then, all by itself, the sentence you mention. Is it referring to all of the above, or does it stand alone and refer to reciprocating engines as well?

If the latter, then can you run a XF,XXF, XO engine in Classic?

Honest answer is that I really don't know for sure.  But it appears to me that the only part of the new rules that applies to Omega and is the stuff about swept volume factor to adjust the 'displacement' of rotaries.  BTW the factor in 2010 was (is) x3.

So I think the sentence . . ."In classes where not all engine breaks are available, the smallest displacement class allowed is open to all engine displacements that fall within it and below it."  applies to all engines, recip, omega, rotary, whatever . . .

I do not think that this implies that XF, XXF, XO, XXO or V4 or even V4F can run in the smallest displacement class.  Somebody correct this if I am wrong, but, I thought the the vintage engines were always allowed to run in Classic but they run in the class that matches their engine displacement.  Example - I think a 74 Mustang gas coupe with a 239 cubic inch flathead V8 engine would be in E/CGC and not XF/CGC.  Why not F/CGC you ask, . . . because a 239 cubic inch engine is bigger than "all engine displacements that fall within it and below it."  where for Classic 'it' is F class with a maximum engine displacement of 183.99 cubic inches. 

Humm. . . I just re-read what I have typed above and I can probably say for sure that this is an example of why I would be the wrong guy to re-write the rules.  Heaven bless those willing to be rules writers. 

[RichFox]

What happens with cars such as my vega that would be in Classic category if powered with a later engine is that they simply run as a Gas coup or altered without the Classic sub heading. No break is given for pre '84 body styles. Of course pre '49 bodys run in Vintage coup. So my Vega with a late model V8 is a "Classic Altered" With a GMC it's just an Altered

[RichFox]

I wish to once again address the Radiator rule for Gas coup. It would seem apparent that the rule revision as now written is not what the rule makers wanted to say. It is my hope and belief that someone who can, will change the wording to include "a minimum of" or "no smaller than" or something like that to properly express the intent of the rule. As it is now written it will just be a headache for as long as it exists explaning to people that the very clear instructions in the rule book don't mean what they say. If rewriting the radiator rule had been a 7th grade English test the SCTA would have received an "F".

[JR529]

. . . . .  Then, all by itself, the sentence you mention. Is it referring to all of the above, or does it stand alone and refer to reciprocating engines as well?

If the latter, then can you run a XF,XXF, XO engine in Classic?

Honest answer is that I really don't know for sure.  But it appears to me that the only part of the new rules that applies to Omega and is the stuff about swept volume factor to adjust the 'displacement' of rotaries.  BTW the factor in 2010 was (is) x3.

So I think the sentence . . ."In classes where not all engine breaks are available, the smallest displacement class allowed is open to all engine displacements that fall within it and below it."  applies to all engines, recip, omega, rotary, whatever . . .

I do not think that this implies that XF, XXF, XO, XXO or V4 or even V4F can run in the smallest displacement class.  Somebody correct this if I am wrong, but, I thought the the vintage engines were always allowed to run in Classic but they run in the class that matches their engine displacement.  Example - I think a 74 Mustang gas coupe with a 239 cubic inch flathead V8 engine would be in E/CGC and not XF/CGC.  Why not F/CGC you ask, . . . because a 239 cubic inch engine is bigger than "all engine displacements that fall within it and below it."  where for Classic 'it' is F class with a maximum engine displacement of 183.99 cubic inches. 

Humm. . . I just re-read what I have typed above and I can probably say for sure that this is an example of why I would be the wrong guy to re-write the rules.  Heaven bless those willing to be rules writers. 

You need to read this in context in the rule book. It is located in section 2.0 under the heading Engine Class Break section and applies to that section only. Vintage engines are not even discussed in that section. They are introduced and defined within their own section entirely (2.1).

"In classes where not all engine breaks are available, the smallest displacement class allowed is open to all engine displacements that fall within it and below it." refers ONLY to AA through K.

This rule simply means that if a certain class stops at G (for example) it has the effect of redefining the lower limit of the G class (again, just an example) to "up to 183.99 CID" from the current "123.00 to 189.99 CID" that it would be without this change. It has no effect on vintage engines at all.

Regarding "running up" in classes, remember Section 1B remains in full effect: "ALL VEHICLES WILL RUN ONLY IN THE LOWEST PRIMARY CLASS FOR WHICH THEY ARE LEGAL."

[JR529]

I wish to once again address the Radiator rule for Gas coup. It would seem apparent that the rule revision as now written is not what the rule makers wanted to say. It is my hope and belief that someone who can, will change the wording to include "a minimum of" or "no smaller than" or something like that to properly express the intent of the rule.

The process for changing the wording on that rule has already been put in motion but it has to go through the board hence the reason it has not been changed already.

If rewriting the radiator rule had been a 7th grade English test the SCTA would have received an "F".

On behalf of all the people who freely volunteer huge amounts of time to make it possible for you to race, I want to thank you for your continued support. I hope we didn't inconvenience you too much.

/-{@}-\

[SPARKY]

  Rich, I believe you definitely qualify for a member of Joe Law's race team this morning!  ---lol