Sent this to Beth and though it went to whole mail list here is a copy
for the list...Sorry for the duplicate Beth...
Dave
dahlgren wrote:
>
> Maybe the first thing that has to happen is to put everyone on an even
> playing field. The illegal cars that are 'granfathered' ought to comply
> to the class rules. Seems like a little wink and tip of the hat to
> someone that has a special car that has an unfair advantage. This does
> not happen in any other racing venue that I am aware of. I hear a lot
> about wanting to get NEW YOUNGER people involved in the sport. What is
> the point if the class they want to compete in has some cars that have
> an unfair advantage. Does anyone think I could show up with a Winston
> cup car that is an original '67 Ford with a 427 and tell them it is a
> Holman and Moody car and should be 'grandfathered' in ? Or a car that
> was built in the early '90's that has a bigger wing ? Or an Indy car
> that has a Cosworth in it ? Most of these grandfathered cars seem to
> have an advantage that is not easily overcome by some legal
> modification. The whole concept is unfair and reeks of a good old boys
> club. I realize there is a cost to bring the cars in compliance with
> the rules, but they are just that, rules. If you do not follow them,
> and they are not fair for all, what is the point of having any. Might
> as well just run what you brung. Young racers of today are very smart
> and they know when they are being treated fairly. If anyone expects
> they will show up for the glory of it all and then not have the same
> rules as everyone else is sadly mistaken. As for the person that has a
> body style that needs an illegal modification in order to be stable
> there are only too choices in my mind. They either have to pick a new
> body to build a car around or they should be restricted, as a safety
> measure, to a speed that is below the point of instability and then be
> allowed to run as an exhibition car. This is the only racing venue that
> I have ever competed in that the 'rules' were only for new cars....
>
> My 2 cents worth, if I offended anyone, sorry that was not the point.
>
> Dave Dahlgren
> Engine Management Systems
> Mystic,CT.
>
> Beth Butters wrote:
> >
> > The alteration youguys see on studebakers hasn't
>been legal for some time, many of these cars have been on the salt for 30 or
>40 years and this was a popular thing to do before it was made illegal .
>These cars have this modification grandfathered to them. Just like there are
>a few 4 wheel drive roadsters that are no longer legal. Like I said earlier,
>walking around the pits to see what is legal in a class will get you into
>trouble, and know one preticularly cars what you do as long as its not a
>safety item until you qualify for a record. If set a record in my class with
>a car that I see as not conforming to the rules I ' d consider protesting
>you. You need to remember that when you go thew inspection the inspectors
>are not looking at you car as to class conformity, they are doing a safety
>inspection. So follow what the rules say in altered, no areodynamic
>alterations to the body excepting the covering of openings with flat p!
lates ,
> no
> > airdams unless!
> > they are fActory, no flush mounting of window glass, if you want to
>build a comp. Coup build one. If you are building an altered from a modern
>marshmellow car its more areo stock than I could ever get my Studebaker,
>Whatr they have going for them is looks and overall length. In my opinion you
>will get into hot water venting high pressure areas thew body panels. L.
>Kvach Butters BB/G Alt. CC #1392
> >
> > ----------
> > From: dferguso@ebmail.gdeb.com[SMTP:dferguso@ebmail.gdeb.com]
> > Sent: Monday, May 24, 1999 4:45 AM
> > To: land-speed@autox.team.net
> > Subject: Re: To Duct or not to Duct, That is the Question...
> >
> > hello mayfield,(racers),i pretty much agree with your interpretation , and
> > along with yours would come the logical deduction (no pun intended) that
> > ANY penetration consists of three elements, an intake, a ducting section,
> > and a vent, weather it is a home air conditioning unit like your example,
> > or the other extreme such as a hole in a piece of aluminum foil, in which
> > the "intake" would be one face of the foil, the "duct" would be about .008"
> > long (the thickness of the material), and the "vent" would be the other
> > face of the foil which the medium (air in our case) flowed towards.
> > therefore, a commercial naca duct placed in a body panel would also consist
> > of these three elements, which leads us to the original question - is a
> > naca duct in a hood or fender considered a duct or a vent (or both !) ?????
> >
> > regards,
> > doug ferguson
> > black radon engineering
|