Boy Your Fast Dave..... That was my question...
What Prompted this whole discussion and how did this rule get here? Just
curious.... I ain't smart enough to sort out a Holley let alone a Traction
control device... but I just went back and read the new rule.... What's up
with this and why do we need this rule? Curiosity only....
Keith... ahhhh No I don't expect to understand the answer...
----------
> From: dahlgren <dahlgren@uconect.net>
> To: Jim Bickford <jbickford@volcano.net>; Land-speed@autox.team.net
> Subject: Re: traction control
> Date: Monday, February 21, 2000 12:11 PM
>
>
>
> WHY?
>
>
> Dahlgren
>
> Jim Bickford wrote:
> >
> > Dave,
> >
> > In Production Classes, if the car has OEM traction control it is legal.
> > All other classes active computer or non-driver controlled traction
> > devices are illegal (II-17 Computer). Most of these devices use
> > a computer to activate the rear brakes or random kill cylinders (like
rev
> > control)
> > when the is a RPM differential from the front wheel and rear wheel
> > speed sensors.
> >
> > The driver can of course manually apply the rear brakes when
> > he or she feel the rear tires spin. The most successful way
> > of dealing with wheel spin in the big lakesters or streamliners
> > is to use a slipper clutch either weighted or controlled by the
> > driver. The clutch generally is only fully engaged about the last
> > 1/4-3/8 mile at El Mirage.
> >
> > If everybody had as good a feel for what the car was doing as Freddie
> > Dannenfelzer all this complication would be unnecessary.
> >
> > Jim Bickford
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: dahlgren <dahlgren@uconect.net>
> > To: <Land-speed@autox.team.net>
> > Sent: Monday, February 21, 2000 8:08 AM
> > Subject: Re: traction control
> >
> > > What types of traction control are you talking about? There are a lot
of
> > > ways to do it.. Are you talking about manual systems that try to
apply
> > > the brakes or power limiting types that just reduce the output of the
> > > engine if there is a lot of slip. I know these are very unreliable
> > > because most major auto makers offer them to the public to drive on
the
> > > road by little old ladies.. If this type is illegal I think we should
> > > not allow automatic transmissions either , if you can't shift a stick
go
> > > home.. LOL
> > > I think it is called progress.. but for me I don't think I would ever
> > > want anything applying the brakes but me. limiting the power i would
be
> > > game for though if the car did not hook up.
> > > Dave Dahlgren
> > > Engine Management Systems
> > >
> > >
> > > Higginbotham Land Speed Racing wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Good that it was rejected!
> > > > My penny,
> > > > Skip H
> > > >
> > > > At 06:00 AM 2/21/00 , you wrote:
> > > > >Jim,
> > > > >
> > > > >Not true - the suggestion was presented at the rules meetings and
> > rejected.
> > > > >
> > > > >Dan W
> > > > >----- Original Message -----
> > > > >From: Jim Bickford <jbickford@volcano.net>
> > > > >To: <land-speed@autox.team.net>
> > > > >Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2000 8:29 PM
> > > > >Subject: traction control
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >> Mike or Dan,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I have been hearing rumors that traction control
> > > > >> devices operated by other than the driver will
> > > > >> be allowed for Special Construction Cars,
> > > > >> streamliners and lakesters.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Any truth to this? I know in the past just the accusation
> > > > >> of having a traction control device on your car cost you
> > > > >> your first born and loss of competition license for 3 years.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Jim Bickford
> > > > >> in rainy Jackson, Northern CA
> > > > >>
|