David
You've obviously put a lot of thought into you response. However, from
my personal experience, I don't see how any of this is going to be cheep.
Speed costs money, regardless of category, so how fast do you want to go?
My question, is this a class for aerodynamically deficient vehicles
(which was my take on this category in the beginning) or one for cost
conscious racers? I personally believe that if it's for cost reasons then we
need a whole bunch of new restrictions to make that aspect viable. It's
possible for any racer right now...regardless of category...to go to the
swap meets and buy used parts. Heck, I have a bunch of used parts in my
current ride and still go fast.
Since used parts prices may vary greatly a comparison of new parts might
be a little more appropriate. Point being that I honestly believe I can
build a new EFI system for little more than the cost of a new Hilborn
mechanical injection unit. And while comparing complete systems a new
carburetor combination, properly set up, isn't that much cheaper either.
I've been using a single 4-bbl to set records at Bonneville for the past
three years.
Now when it comes to competitive HP in this new class, a double throw
down twin turbo, EFI, intercooled, 1,800. HP engine won't be
allowed...OK...but I bet I can do the same thing with a Hilborn and still
blow an 8-71 out of the water. Now I better pick a slick car to run on
Kugel's C/BGALT record...300.787 MPH is out of sight...but there are other
engine class to run with.
As for late 70's vehicles being cheaper than a '53 Studebaker, that's
undoubtedly true. But then again I know of a prospective racer who bought an
'86 Firebird for $200. I guess what I'm saying is that I believe I could
build a competitive C/GALT for the same amount of money as a C/NGALT. It's a
wash.
The concept of this new category is fine with me. And the variety of
opinions in this discussion has been very interesting. I just feel that it
needs a cut off date ('69 to '74) that won't defeat the purpose of allowing
older iron to compete on a somewhat level playing field.
John (older is better) Beckett, LSR #79, E/FCC
----- Original Message -----
From: "Parks, David" <David.Parks@lfr.com>
To: "'Dan Warner'" <dwarner@electrorent.com>; <land-speed@autox.team.net>
Sent: Friday, September 08, 2000 1:30 PM
Subject: RE: New Category
>
> 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
|