Darrell,
I believe you and Dan are both in the Bay area ... perhaps a personal visit
could be arranged.
Wes
----------
> From: "Ferguson, Darrell" <dfergus@bactc.com>
> To: "'dferguso@ebmail.gdeb.com'"
<dferguso@ebmail.gdeb.com>,"'dwarner@electrorent.com'"
<dwarner@electrorent.com>
> Subject: RE: spoilers
> Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 18:01:00 -0800
>
>
>Hi Dan,
> Glad you to hear you've visited our website, in reference to your
>comments regarding the legality of our car, The car is 100% legal per the
>1999 SCTA rules for Altered Bodied Vehicles. If you've been a member of the
>land speed forum for any time, you'll remember the many discussions
>regarding the interpretation of the rules. As a result, I redesigned the
>front spoiler for my car (at considerable effort and expense) to be sure
>that I would, without any possible doubt, comply with the guidelines set
>forth by the SCTA. The rear spoiler on our car, does in fact have one
>Aerodynamic surface used to deflect the air for the purpose of spoiling
>lift. In an effort to guarantee stability, we decided to make the spoiler
>stronger by adding braces to prevent deflection, or failure at high speed.
I
>hope we have not misinterpreted the SCTA's rule. I was led to believe that
>the rules' intent was for 1 surface to be used, not multiple surfaces such
>as those on a Top Fuel Dragster. If you are familiar with the NHRA's rule
>concerning "multistage elements" they restrict them to 3 separate surfaces,
>one behind the other, all at different angles. The NHRA imposed this
>restriction when someone discovered that 2 separate surfaces generated more
>downforce than one. As a result, everyone started running 2 elements on the
>rear of the car. Then someone said, if two work better than one, three
>should work better than two, again more downforce was realized, with
minimal
>increases in drag. Soon the race was on with 4 and 5 element designs being
>deployed. Unfortunately, the increased downforce caused strut failures that
>would subsequently send the car out of control (now- no downforce with
>broken struts!). Finally the NHRA stepped in to limit the # of surfaces to
>3. Along those lines, the SCTA has restricted racers in the Altered Class
to
>only 1 surface, which my rear spoiler has and, I agree with the SCTA that
>multiple surfaces would allow spoiler designs to generate downforce at
>unsafe levels. My brother and I spent considerable time designing our rear
>spoiler to comply with the SCTA rules, making sure the spoiler did not
>exceed the measurements called for in the rulebook. I actually spent
>considerable time with an SCTA inspector, and a few altered class
>competitors, including Alan Fogliadini earlier this year at El Mirage
>discussing the legality of my car. I showed the inspector pictures of the
>car, and recited the rules regarding spoiler design and aerodynamic device
>classification from memory since I had reviewed the rules so often to make
>sure my car would be legal. He checked the 1999 rule book and agreed that
>the spoiler was in fact legal per class rules. While I cannot remember his
>name, he races the # 304 BBGALT Camaro, and in my opinion, I would expect
an
>SCTA inspector to be critical about a different design, albeit legal,
>especially since he races in almost the exact same class as I do. When he
>gave his blessings, I assumed it as law.
> In reference to the plates behind the car, we were unclear in the
>rules as to how the two plates would be classified. We refer to them as
>"chines" since there is no classification for any device within the
>paragraph outlining Aerodynamic devices that is even remotely close to our
>rear chines. We designed them with the intent of helping to keep the car
>pointed straight should we begin to go sideways at high speed. Also it will
>help prevent salt spray from corroding the parachute, mount, and cords.
>Other than that, there is no aerodynamic benefit of the two plates. Since
we
>did not know how the SCTA inspectors would receive this new chine, and did
>not want to make the car illegal for competition in the altered class, we
>designed them so should the SCTA deem the chines, or plates illegal, then
we
>would simply remove the 20 bolts that hold them on, and return to legal
>status. Again, this goes back to interpretation of the rules, and although
>we feel this will only make the car safer, we designed the two lower plates
>with that question in mind.
> Since I started subscribing to this list, the topic of rule
>interpretation has come up frequently. I have heard comments ranging across
>the board. The most common have been that since my car is nowhere near as
>aerodynamic as a new thunderbird, or a 1990 Firebird, I will not be judged
>as harshly. I am obviously at a disadvantage to begin with using a 1968
>Firebird body for competition within a class dominated by vehicles more
>aerodynamic than mine. I've also been told that the faster I run, the more
I
>will be scrutinized. While it is tough to interpret and enforce the rules
>for the wide variety of bodystyles, for me the rules should be a bit more
>consistent throughout the class. I designed the two plates for high speed
>stability. With my knowledge of aerodynamics and fluid flow from college,
>the two plates, if anything, are a disadvantage while the car is traveling
>straight, and aerodynamically buy me nothing. Should the car start to spin
>however, the idea is to help the car from coming around until I can slow to
>a safe speed, much like fins on a dart keep it pointed straight. If the two
>plates are classified by the SCTA as diffusers, and subsequently illegal
for
>the Altered class, I will remove them. I am in total agreement with you
Dan,
>I would be disappointed to have gone to such great lengths to keep the car
>within the Altered Class rules to be violated for a safety improvement.
This
>is why we made them removable.
> I would like to say thank you for your concern about our project.
>And your foresight to address topics similar to these at the upcoming rules
>meeting. I know that I, as will many others on this list, look forward to
>your reply.
>
> Sincerely
>
> Darrell Ferguson
> BLACK RADON ENGINEERING
> # 939 BBFALT
> http://my.cybersoup.com/blackradon
>
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Daniel Warner <dwarner@electrorent.com>
>> To: Land Speed <land-speed@autox.team.net>
>> Cc: Dan Warner <dwarner@electrorent.com>
>> Date: Tuesday, November 02, 1999 6:18 AM
>> Subject: spoilers
>>
>> Darrell,
>> Just visted your page to look at your project. Appears to be a fine piece
>> of craftsmanship, a vehicle to be proud of.
>> I am curious though as to your interpretation of the rear spoiler. As
>> referenced in your text a non-stock spoiler may be fabricated to the
specs
>> called out in section IV-24h (misprint, should be IV-26h). The spoiler on
>> your car doesn't seem to meet the single aerodynamic surface rule. I also
>> reference page 53, last paragraph, 1st sentence "No streamlining
allowed."
>> What caught my attention was the plates under the rear of the body which
>> look like diffusers(?). Please look at page 38, IV-26 Streamlining. The
>> opening paragraph defines SOME types of streamlining devices.
>> The intent of "No streamlining" and the section defining streamlining
>> devices is to point out that if the class is not allowed streamlining
>> anything under section IV-16 or appears to be non-stock for the class is
>> not allowed.
>> With the approaching date for the rules meetings I would like to be sure
>> that we are clear with the wording. It is difficult to present rules to
>> the
>> competitors who are out of the So Cal area. Locally we can communicate
>> with
>> each other directly concerning applications of the rules. We certainly
>> don't want someone building a car/bike and travelling several thousands
of
>> miles to be out of class. It is not our intention to stop an entry from
>> running.
>> Dan Warner
>>
>>
>>
>
|