Group,
First off, let me say that David Parks is right on with his comments! There
has been a lot of discussion over the past several years about a "muscle
car" class. Many people have "muscle cars" that are not competitive with
new aerodynamic designs. These cars were the mainstay of LSR racing through
the years and the owners are not ready to turn them into museum pieces yet.
They want to race, but are by no means competitive. A "muscle car" class was
proposed at last years rules meeting, but was denied by the committee
because it was not well defined. That is what Dan is trying to do here,
provide definition. What Dan proposed is by no means "arbitrary" and has
been given much thought and discussion. Dan's comment to me was "we have to
start somewhere". Well Pandora's Box is open. Now let me put my two cents
worth in as some of you would say...
Most people agree that starting at 49 (where vintage ends) and going through
81 (where the new F bodied cars began in 82) is a good body break.
There are two schools of thought on technology; first no EFI or computer
controlled ignitions, the second; do not restrict technology. I do not care
and can see both sides of the argument. Remember these cars as equipped
from the factory did not have EFIs or computer controlled ignitions.... Do
you stay true to an era or allow progressive thinking, where would we be if
Stu Hilborn was banned from using his new fangled injection contraption? You
all may have to vote on the issue and the one with most votes wins! :-)
As far as technology, I agree with the comments about "crank triggers".
There is no distinct advantage to crank trigger. What we should ban is
computer control of ignitions. This would allow standard MSD, but not allow
MSD with knock sensor. Try these words; "No computer controlled ignitions,
e.g. MSD with knock sensor. MSD with preset advance curves are allowed."
Remember we are looking for good constructive feed back!
Mike (who spent more like a dime than two cents worth) Manghelli
SCTA President
-----Original Message-----
From: Parks, David <David.Parks@lfr.com>
To: 'Dan Warner' <dwarner@electrorent.com>; land-speed@autox.team.net
<land-speed@autox.team.net>
Cc: bsykesjr@mediaone.net <bsykesjr@mediaone.net>
Date: Wednesday, June 14, 2000 3:33 PM
Subject: RE: New Category
>Well folks, here comes my completely unbiased opinion... (yeah, so what if
>my car is a 79 camaro with hilborns; it's up for sale anyway)
>
>I like the idea of setting up some new classes for the "classic" muscle
type
>stuff. We now have classes for the vintage stuff, and part of the reason is
>to protect the heritage of our sport. As newer technology and aerodynamics
>set records at astonishingly higher levels, many of the cars out there
cease
>to be run because they can never even be "in the ball park".
>
>The new records are great, and I don't ever want to slow anybody down, but
I
>also think that it is not out of line to establish classes where people can
>run the really neat older speed parts and still be somewhat competitive. I
>don't want to see all the old Hilborns turned into mantelpiece decorations.
>There is something about pre-computer stuff that really makes it feel like
>Hot Rodding. If we can preserve the heritage of the vintage cars, or even
>the roadsters, it won't hurt us to preserve a little of the muscle era, and
>I think it should include some technology as well as model year
limitations.
>
>As such, the proposed model year range seems reasonable as it sorts out
most
>of the newer sleeker bodies that you have to run now if you want to play
>with the big boys. I built a 79 camaro because it was what I could get for
>300 bucks (no engine or trans, but I was going to throw those away anyway).
>And what else would you do with a 51 Studebaker besides race it at the
>Lakes/Bonneville? Some of these cars are just crying to be made into race
>cars, but they will never be picked, since you would be foolish not to use
>one of the newer "aero" cars if you want to be competitive.
>
>For technology, I think something along the lines of "computers are allowed
>for data collection purposes only", as in the vintage classes, should be
>sufficient. No EFI, no fancy sensored variable spark control. Stuff like
>that wasn't on most of the early muscle, and if we are going to preserve
the
>"era" (as well as allow people to build cars from stuff at the local swap
>meet), I think we should try to keep it simple. As far as crank triggers, I
>don't care where the signal comes from as long as you don't "computer" it
up
>after you get it. That seems like a window dressing issue to me.
>
>As far as the number of classes goes, it doesn't bother me to have a few
>more, especially when there is such a large number of existing cars out
>there that will fall right into these classes. And it might even bring out
a
>few oldies but goodies that nobody has seen in a while. One of the main
>things that makes this kind of racing fun is the diversity of the cars and
>the people who run them. I'm all for protecting that diversity by giving
>"muscle" a chance to compete, and not just be lost in the onslaught of
>technology. It is supposed to be fun, isn't it?
>
>David Parks, proud old camaro owner...
|