Well said Mike, I agree with what you have shared as well as what Dan has
suggested. Make up some guidelines and put it out for the vote, you've got
mine,
Dave Haller #93 C/GAlt
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Manghelli" <mmanghel@hughes.net>
To: <land-speed@autox.team.net>; "'Dan Warner'" <dwarner@electrorent.com>;
"Parks, David" <David.Parks@lfr.com>
Cc: "Bloomberg, David" <david.bloomberg@lmco.com>; <bsykesjr@mediaone.net>
Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2000 8:31 PM
Subject: Re: New Category
> 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...
>
|