That's what happens when you are a rocket scientist and ask a question of
"mere mortals" !
On Sep 27, 2013, at 9:35 AM, Larry Mayfield <drmayf@mayfco.com> wrote:
> I hope everyone has settled down a bit, me included. But, the
> questions I asked below are still unanswered. So, let me ask again. And
> please, don't quote rule book paragraphs, explain it to me if you can
> speak for the SCTA or have direct experience with the asked questions
> below. For those that hate my guts (and apparently there are a lot of
> you, lol), just hit the delete button. No use getting angry about any
> thing as I am not trying to change anything at all except me getting
> smarter on the hows and whys of rules that affect me and my car.
>
> This paragraph is for *general reference* for me to try and indicate
> what I am asking for. Please do not assume anything regards to what you
> think I may or may not do.
>> Up front: I am not seeking rule changes! What I would like however, is
>> some clarifications regarding canopies. My rule book references are
>> paragraphs:
>> 2.M, 3.B.1 fig 3 and 4A, 3.E, and 3.U.
>>
> I'll break apart the paragraphs into indents for clarity..
>
> a) Ok, my first clarification question is from 2.M, first sentence:
> "Canopies *ENCLOSING the driver*..." (my emphasis).... What does
> enclosing the driver mean to the rules makers?
>
>
> b) How much of covering the driver defines enclosed?
>
> c) Does that include the roll cage under which the driver resides?
>
> d) What defines what a canopy is and how it can be measured?
>
> e) When I think of enclosing the driver, I think of a fighter jet
> canopy. It goes completely over the pilot.
>
> f) Next refer to fig 3.B fig 3 and 4.A.
> If a wind screen came back as far as the roll cage, but did not fasten
> to the cage itself and maybe even have a gap between the two would that
> be considered a canopy?
>
> g) Why? It does not *enclose* the driver, does it? Is it then, just a
> wind screen?
>
> h) And almost to the last, hatches...some closed cars may have hatches
> for the driver to egress through. Pretty sure that no OEM car ever had
> a hatch for escape or egress so they are add ons for *driver safety*.
> So, can a wind screen that comes back to the front bar in the
> (unmentionable word deleted here) roll cage have a latch device to
> release the wind screen for the same exact reasons that a closed car can
> have a hatch for driver ingress and egress? If not, why is it allowed
> for the closed driver to be safer than for an open car driver? Or that
> a competitive advantage be given to the closed car? Oh, a new part to
> this question: given that cars must now have a funny car type roll cage
> for the driver, or a full containment seat, are hatches even relevant
> today? I do not see how a driver could escape though one with that kind
> of roll cage or seat. Yeah I know that funny car drivers do it all the
> time, but they have a lot more room than we do.
>
> i) If a wind screen comes back to the first roll bar, does it have to be
> *open* to the sky? If so, what defines that opening size? Ie, I see that
> the wind screen can wrap around and connect to the roll cage but that
> the driver has to be able to get in and out over that wind screen. Why
> is that, especially given that a closed car can use a hatch which is
> opening or removing a body panel? What defines the amount of wind screen
> that is allowed in other words. Who has the ruler that measures that
> opening size and how large is that opening?
>
>
> Ok, end of my questions. Again, if you think these are stupid and dumb
> and that I am a dumb shit, just hit the delete button. No need for any
> of us to get into a pissing contest since all I am asking for are simple
> answers to educate myself and certainly no one is under any obligation
> at all to answer or reply to anything I send. I have only been doing
> this since 2006 unlike most of you; I don't have the history and
> experience that you all do. And if I could edit the "send to" list for
> land speed to keep some of you from getting my questions because I
> already know you think I am dumber than a bag of rocks I would. I don't
> want any one to get some thing from me they do not want.
>
> larry.
> _______________________________________________
> Land-speed@autox.team.net
> Donate: http://www.team.net/donate.html
> Archive: http://www.team.net/archive
> Forums: http://www.team.net/forums
> Unsubscribe/Manage:
http://autox.team.net/mailman/options/land-speed/wester6935@comcast.net
_______________________________________________
Land-speed@autox.team.net
Archive: http://www.team.net/archive
|