Dave and the List.
Do not know if my two pence is worth anything in this discussion so I held
back, but Dave is right in my mind to prod those in control of the rules
making process to justify decisions taken. We may not all agree with
particular rules, but if the thought process behind them makes sense then
we should accept them, 'or go play elsewhere'. If the thought process is
flawed, then a rule can be amended in accordance with the set down
procedures at the earliest moment, or if a really bad rule why not invoke
the 'change without notice' clause in the rule book intro ?
I do not run a rotary motored vehicle, nor do I expect to do so. I am a
Brit and I am unlikely to run under SCTA rules on the dry lakes or
concrete. I am not an SCTA member this year (I was in 1998) so I guess the
rule makers would not wish to have 'outside' comments. Hey they might also
call me a 'wannabee' something ! But .........
Applying a 'factor' to equalise any form of difference is always going to
be a problem for any rule making body. Whether it is in supercharging vs
normal aspiration, turbocharging vs supercharging, Nitrous Oxide (oxygen)
'additives' vs Oxygen bearing fuels, 4stroke against 2 stroke or even
rotary motion against reciprocating motion.
The FIA have even shown that they have no standardisation in their rule
book for rotary engines because instead of a factor for LSR classifications
(as opposed to their circuit race classes) they have put such motors in a
different class all together, as Mike Jenkins explained early on in this
discussion.
This sort of rule would mean more classes and as Chuck has said probably no
competition at all for the few using rotary motors. The FIA do not run any
Land Speed Racing.
At the very least, if the SCTA are not able to sustain the reasons for a x3
factor (and from the chat on this list I guess they cannot) of the swept
volume of a non reciprocating engine, then by October 2001 Dave's request
for x2 or x2.1 factor should be put to the 'Board' in writing in time for
implementation in the 2002 rules.
Having said that rule writing is not easy: - in 'II-2 Fuels' (two lines
below the x3 factor data) - as a Combustion Engineer I can tell you all
that Nitrous Oxide is NOT a fuel, has never been and cannot be. Yet the
SCTA lists it in writing as "an approved fuel" for the 'fuel classes'. Why
treat Nitrous Oxide any differently to a turbocharger or supercharger ? as
all three fulfill the same goal of getting more air/fuel into the cylinder
(or chamber if rotary). Thats another thread set to run .....
Dave - we have listened and read your work. I agree you have a good well
reasoned case. Good luck with the SCTA procedures to get this rule
changed. (Keep calm in the face of provocation).
Malcolm Pittwood
Derby, England.
(Just getting ready for the Speed Record Club Coniston gathering in the
Lake District when we remember The Speed King - Donald Campbell, who lost
his life in a WSR attempt 33 years ago yesterday).
|