In a message dated 01/20/2000 2:44:57 PM Pacific Standard Time,
dfergus@bactc.com writes:
<<
ARDUN DOUG and Group
I'm going to throw in my two cents worth here for the very last time
regarding our "soon to run" Blown Fuel Altered that has become a focal point
for discussion on this list. The reason our car is "soon to run" is that I
had a technical question regarding the configuration or our rollcage prior
to the 1998 meet. Rather than get shot down in tech, I called Steve
Batchelor. I explained how our 10 point roll cage was welded to the subframe
connectors that were welded and crossbraced in our 68 firebird. After a
lengthy discussion with Steve, he didn't seem convinced that our car would
meet the minimum safety requirements for the Altered class. As a result I
gutted the car and fabricated a 14 point funny car style tube chassis. I
have to say, I was disappointed when I went to Bonneville and saw another
competitor, with a motor considerably wilder than ours at that time, running
an identical bodystyle with no subframe connectors, and a cage that in my
opinion, wasn't as safe as the one I just scrapped. I choked it down as part
of the price I had to pay making the jump from the drags to the flats and
took piece of mind in the fact that I had a superior design. For 1999 a
personal emergency forced my brother to return home early. Rather than rush
to finish the brake lines and fire system on the car we decided that it
would be better to wait than miss something that may cause a problem at
speeds in the 250+ mph range - all in the name of safety!
I guess my brother and I are sensitive to this subject because we've
been told that inspection is for safety purposes only and classification
(unless blatantly outside the rules for the class) would be decided (or
objected) only upon qualification for a record. I have absolutely no
objection to this whatsoever, particularly since both Doug and I have taken
great care to design a car that is safe while paying close attention to the
safety guidelines set forth by the SCTA.
Instead my problem lies in the fact that judgements are being made
about our altered, albeit controversial, in reference to our classification,
merely from a picture of the vehicle. It began at El Mirage dry lake when a
tech inspector (also a competitor in the Altered class) told me my front air
dam was illegal. I objected that it was and stated verbatim, the rule
regarding airdam design for the altered class. Still he insisted that it was
illegal so I suggested we visit the rule book to rectify the situation.
After reviewing the rulebook it was decided that yes, the air dam was legal
per the rules, and that he, an SCTA inspector, competing in the same body
class did not know the general regulations for that very class. Moving
forward to the land speed forum here, similar issues arose from our
interpretation of the rules surrounding pictures of our car on our webpage.
You are 100% correct Ardun Doug, we will roll into tech and see what they
say, but Doug and I have already resigned ourselves to running for time only
rather than remove our spoiler and run a car that is potentially unsafe.
>>
Darrell,
VERY WELL STATED!!!!!! Did you send Steve Batchelor any photographs or
drawings of your rollcage setup? How about the spoiler issue with the
appropriate car-class committee? If it were mine I'd get some response in
writing, back my idea up with as much engineering data as I could come up
with, and probably take my chances with the tech people once they saw the
car, and the car committee and / or the SCTA Board.
I know that being 6 hours from El Mirage I have a different situation and
attitude than someone a continent away who's trying desperately to make the
yearly pilgrimage to the salt a successful one.
When I did my modified Roadster over the past 3 years there were a number
of "grey-areas" that I wanted to explore and push the envelope a little. I
couldn;t get an objection out of the Roadster Committee about them, so I did
my thing and will see what happens if and when I get ti impound.
If it were me, and I thought I wasn't in obvious violation of the rules
and / or some recent impound precedent, I'd go for it. Of course, that's
easier for me to say than you to necessarily do.........Ardun Doug in CA
|