I agree with Thomas, our intent was not in any way try to force anyone to
change a car that has raced for many years. While there are very few early
Studebakers still setting records in the altered class, I personally don't
have a big problem allowing a REASONABLE modification to an older vehicle in
order to make it stable at high speed, and competitive against newer body
styles. We have chosen to run a 68 Firebird body in the altered class, and
as the builder of a new car, it is my own fault for choosing a vehicle that
is aerodynamically inferior to say an 88 Firebird. Our intent is to see
where the rules lie. Again, I think I can speak for everyone here that one
of the unique things about Bonneville is the leniency of the rules, and
diversity of body styles, this is why my brother and I chose to race here.
This inherently makes the rules harder to enforce than NASCAR where there
are only 3 or 4 body styles. We are merely trying to interpret the rules
properly so that they are fair to everyone, and a modification that I and
others interpret as legal, is not interpreted as illegal by a biased
inspector. We just want to build the best car that we possibly can without
scrapping our original body choice, for a newer, more aerodynamic vehicle.
Darrell Ferguson
BLACK RADON ENGINEERING
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas E. Bryant [SMTP:saltracer@awwwsome.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 1999 8:54 PM
> To: Keith Turk
> Cc: dahlgren; Land-speed@autox.team.net
> Subject: Re: Time to cool it!
>
> 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
|