Sorry guys if I was unclear about the Flat head part of this discussion...
it was my intent to be very VERY complimentary to the folks out there
running X stuff..
I have one whole role of film dedicated to a Light Blue track nosed 4
banger with a custom built head... Just because the guy had put so much
thought and Brain power into setting a record in his class..... The car was
built by a Master Craftsman who dearly loved running it... and I am sorry I
can't come up with his name off the top of my head... the guy was really
nice to me last year and we spent two nights Drinking Beer.... (maybe that
is why I can't remember his name)(diet coke on the brain)...
Sorry again my point was that guy spent a ton of effort and I for one was
grateful as it gave me the opportunity to see his thoughts in practice...
Keith....(Ps he had his Dad with him and he was a fireman)... hmmm damn
names...
----------
> From: Thomas E. Bryant <saltracer@awwwsome.com>
> To: Keith Turk <kturk@ala.net>
> Cc: dahlgren <dahlgren@uconect.net>; Land-speed@autox.team.net
> Subject: Re: Time to cool it!
> Date: Tuesday, May 25, 1999 6:53 PM
>
> Guys & Gals,
> Sorry, but I don't like where this is going. I have been in the SCTA for
> 44 years, I was president 2 years and served on the board for a number
> of years. There are now, and always have been, a bunch of people working
> their tails off to give us a chance to run, have fun, and do it safely.
> The "Grandfather Clause" lets people continue to run cars that don't fit
> the new rules, but generally the cars are upstaged by new technology and
> do not have an unfair advantage. If the car changes ownership, It is my
> understanding that the new owner wants to run it he has to comply with
> the new rules.
>
> I think we are getting excited over a non-issue when it comes to
> "Grandfathered Cars". Maybe I'm wrong, but, I don't know of any that are
> a threat to the available cars of today. Example: The "Pierson Coupe"
> was retired primarily because of the more streamlined Studebakers. We
> proved that to be a joke! Then John proved that the Peirson Coupe was
> not King. Too often lack of performance is blamed on the car when a
> better engine or a better tune-up, will solve the problem. In most cases
> I firmly believe that the people setting records would still be the
> record setters if vehicles were exchanged.
>
> Tom
>
> Keith Turk wrote:
> >
> > I am curious.... how many of these Grand Fathered cars are actually out
> > there setting records.. and raising the bar so to speak.... if one set
a
> > record in my class I suppose I too would be offended by the inability
to
> > actually reset that record due to someone's unfair advantage....
> >
> > oh the other hand how many Racing venues have cars that are 25-50 years
old
> > running competitively
> >
> > or classes for cars that are Old.. interesting thoughts...I have seen
lots
> > of work on some of these old flat heads getting really out of hand...
but
> > that is what it takes to be competitive today in those ranks..
> > guess that is one of the things that makes Bonneville so appealing to
me...
> > I can test my collected knowledge against all others in MY CLASS....
now to
> > keep that class on a level playing field... we would have to revert to
> > NASCAR type rules... and I love the wide open rule book....and the few
> > minimum rules .... that exist.... personally the tow is too far for me
to
> > take many chances with the rule book.....
> >
> > enjoying the conversation.... keep it up...
> >
> > Keith Turk....
> >
> > ----------
> > > From: dahlgren <dahlgren@uconect.net>
> > > To: Land-speed@autox.team.net
> > > Subject: [Fwd: To Duct or not to Duct, That is the Question...]
> > > Date: Tuesday, May 25, 1999 3:20 PM
> > >
> > > 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
|