David; Here is my 2 cents worth. Always remember that if you have
something no one else has, it's an advantage. If everyone has to have
it, it's an expense.
Doug Odom in big ditch
Parks, David wrote:
>
> I am not suggesting that anyone would choose to run a stock EFI over a
> monster carb or some Hilborns. I just wanted to leave the door open in case
> someone wanted to run that combination for economic or other reasons. If it
> came stock, it shouldn't be banned, but I doubt that stock EFI will or stock
> computer controlled ignitions will be the items of choice.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dahlgren [mailto:dahlgren@uconect.net]
> Sent: Friday, September 08, 2000 11:07 AM
> To: Parks, David
> Cc: 'Dan Warner'; land-speed@autox.team.net
> Subject: Re: New Category
>
> Running the stock electronics is fine as long as you are going to run
> the stock Q-jet with the jets that came in it right.... What you are
> telling me is i bring out a '80 Camero with a tuned port I put on it and
> an MSD and Nitrous kit it won't be legal for this clas?? man what an odd
> combination eh....Man am I so glad that I try to work on the special
> construction catagory cars..
> Dahlgren
> I love rules that read more like wheels yes
> engine 1 or 2??
> fuel yes have some thanks..
> "Parks, David" wrote:
> >
> > It's great to see all the different opinions thrown out on this subject.
> > These are truly historic times when a whole bunch of racers and other
> > interested parties can become a part of a rules discussion. Usually I
> don't
> > even know what's happening until it is a done deal and I read about it in
> > the rule book.
> >
> > But you guys asked for it, so here's some more opinions...
> >
> > Name: I kind of like "Classic", because it doesn't make it sound as old
> as
> > "Nostalgia". And Classic kind of fits the general cutoff year discussion,
> > since I have heard of cars being referred to as classics when they are 20
> -
> > 25 years old.
> >
> > Cut-off year: I understand the feeling by some that the cut-off should
> be
> > earlier, like 74 or 69. I think that the whole idea of this class is to
> > preserve a place to race for a whole batch of cars that have been racing
> for
> > a while and also to have classes where people can build and race a car
> > without spending a small fortune to be competitive. I don't think that
> > setting the cut-off at 69 will accomplish that because, frankly, to keep
> > things "cheap", I think you will need the large numbers of cars built in
> the
> > 70's. There just aren't enough of the early cars left to think that a
> > significant number of them will be turned into race cars. And the 70's
> cars
> > are plentiful and cheap. Maybe that's why you see so many of them in land
> > Speed Racing. There are a lot of these cars already racing, and that is
> what
> > we are trying to preserve (I think). Now as for the debate of 74 vs. 81, I
> > am sure 81 was picked because of ease of enforcement. The difference in
> > aerodynamics between a 70 and a 81 Camaro are small compared to the
> > difference between that sort of Camaro and other "brick" cars out there.
> And
> > the 70 through 81 all look similar. More of a problem would be created by
> > cutting it off in the middle of these years as people would try to
> retrofit
> > 75 and up bodies with pre 75 parts to make them legal. It is already hard
> to
> > enforce rules regarding cars of "mixed" years. There are plenty of cars
> out
> > there that run body parts from several years and pick one to claim for
> > registration purposes. And frankly, who cares, as long as it looks like
> the
> > year they say it is. I know 81 doesn't fit everybody's idea of where the
> > break should be, but for practical purposes, it seems to work to separate
> > the really aerodynamic cars that came out in 82. I'm sorry that so much of
> > this discussion centers around Camaros, but let's face it: there are a lot
> > of them out there. Even for the other makes, aerodynamics seemed to change
> > around 82. There are just a whole lot of cars competing out there now that
> > conveniently fall into a cut-off of 81. And these are generally the cars
> > that are seeing their records broken by 20, 30, 50, 75 miles per hour.
> When
> > cars have raced for years looking for a couple of extra mph, it doesn't
> take
> > a rocket scientist (sorry Mayf) to see what will happen to them when the
> > record goes out of sight. And how many of you can afford to build the
> latest
> > "state-of-the art" car now? For ease of application, I vote for 81.
> >
> > Electronics: I don't think you should allow the new-fangled stuff that
> > controls everything with a computer unless the car originally came with
> it,
> > and then you can only use THAT one. Once again, I want to see categories
> > where mere mortals can afford to build a car. There are plenty of cars out
> > there that have set records using the old technology (you know, a coffee
> can
> > with 8 holes punched in it) and these are the cars we should try to
> > preserve. If older cars want to step up and run electro gadgets, they can
> > run in the current classes. Trying to have "entry-level" classes means
> > limiting more than just the body, and you have to admit that electronics
> > adds a whole new dimension of cost and complexity. I say keep the
> "Classic"
> > classes simple.
> >
> > Misc ramblings: As far as "soft records" I am amazed that anyone would
> > think that the proposed changes will "give" people Red Hats. Bear in mind
> > that the cars that will fall into these categories have been racing
> against
> > each other competitively for years. After excluding the new records of the
> > techno-cars, there are darn few soft records in these classes now. It is
> not
> > like they are going to go out and set a bunch of soft minimums for the new
> > classes. There will be existing records for all of them. Any new
> "minimums"
> > will be established for the current classes where the record has not
> already
> > been set by a techno-car. I am sure that new minimums will take into
> account
> > similar records set in similar classes.
> >
> > And for those of you that feel that there are too many classes already,
> the
> > logical end of that thought is that there is only one "real" land speed
> > record, and if you don't want to run against the 400+ mph record, don't
> come
> > out. I already made the comment that Land Speed racing is kind of like a
> > living, rolling museum. Where else can you see such a variety and so many
> > bitchin old cars run? This is what we need to preserve. The diversity of
> > classes hurts no one, and allows more people to feel a part of this
> > historical form of racing. It is not like we have to come up with a bigger
> > purse for the races since you can't win any money anyway. What is wrong
> with
> > allowing more people to compete? A few extra pages of classes in the rule
> > book isn't going to kill anyone, and if it allows more people to realize
> the
> > dream of racing on the salt, dirt or airstrip, it is a good thing.
> >
> > The cars that will fit into the new categories are already there and
> racing,
> > or can be built to race without mortgaging the house. What other form of
> > racing can show such diversity and enthusiasm? I hope these new categories
> > receive the blessings of the racers instead of resentment toward making
> the
> > "pond" bigger.
> >
> > David
|