Often wondered where the 3x handicap came from. Don't know if this helps,
but I believe the FIA international handicap on rotary's is 2.1 or 2.2. I'll
see if I can dig up more...found it once before. Might call Racing Beat for
some specific info as I think they were not very up-beat on the 3x factor.
John Beckett
----- Original Message -----
From: "dahlgren" <dahlgren@uconect.net>
To: "Dan Warner" <dwarner@electrorent.com>
Cc: <land-speed@autox.team.net>
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 10:23 AM
Subject: Re: New Category
> Has any thought been put into the handicap for rotary engines I have a
> few guys i work with that run rotaries and were thinking about coming
> out but did not want to bother for time only as there is little hope of
> setting a record with one because of the handicap.. I understand this to
> be currently displacement X 3..If I am wrong plaese correct me on this..
> To point out the unfairness of it.. I have a customer with a 1300cc 13b
> rotary.. It makes currently about 750 hp at 10000 rpm single turbo.. we
> are going back to the dyno to see if we can find some more hopefully get
> it to 850 hp.. If we use the handicap of X3 it is pointless as a turbo
> piston engine that is 3.9 liters will make this power all day long even
> at X2 it is almost not worth the effort. it seems like the piston engine
> technology has progressed to the point that the handicap system
> basically says don't bother with a rotary.. A naturally aspirated one
> makes about 310 or so.. the same as Goodman's 1995cc Cosworth with
> similar technology.. Would you think that X 1.3 or so to be a more
> realistic handicap?? I thought that SCCA had this handicap factor but
> will see if i pry this piece of info out of them.. I guess what i am
> trying to say is they really make about as much power as a good 'G'
> engine..but certainly not as much as a good 'E' of 'F' engine..
> Dave Dahlgren
>
> Dan Warner wrote:
> >
> > Dave,
> >
> > As I stated in an earlier posting J D Tone has approached some of the
> > Honda/Toyota kids he has in his area (Orange County - a real center of
this
> > type) and they are not interested in our deal. They indicated that it is
too
> > far to go, too dirty and not providing the showcase they want.
> > The SCTA office has had no inquiries from this segment of the sport
either.
> >
> > If you have some in your neighborhood that want to join us sent them
along.
> >
> > Dan Warner
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: dahlgren <dahlgren@uconect.net>
> > To: <ARDUNDOUG@aol.com>
> > Cc: <land-speed@autox.team.net>
> > Sent: Monday, September 11, 2000 11:55 AM
> > Subject: Re: New Category
> >
> > > I'm with you Doug lots easier to find a 1995 camero than a 1968 and
> > > cheaper too for the 1995.. It sure seems to me if you want to get
young
> > > racers involved you have to have classes for what they want to race..
> > > Most I have seen are hot roding all sorts of import and smaller cars..
> > > The kids are all into computers and everything that goes with it. In
my
> > > opinion give them a place to race a turbo toyota or honda and let them
> > > play with the computer stuff and enigne some and seems like there
would
> > > be more. Didn't this whole thing start with a bunch of young guys
> > > wanting to see how fast the old cars they fixed up would go?? What
makes
> > > anyone think it would be any different now.. Might want to look at
this
> > > new blood thing through 22 year old eyes and not our own.. Most of
these
> > > kids could probably care less about a 1980 Camero than they do a 59
> > > Edsel.. I'd bet they both look the same to them for the most part..
> > > My opinion useless as it is..
> > > Dave Dahlgren
> > >
> > > ARDUNDOUG@aol.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In a message dated 09/11/2000 4:07:11 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> > > > dwarner@electrorent.com writes:
> > > >
> > > > << Doug,
> > > >
> > > > Thank you for your input. While your observation has valid points I
see
> > the
> > > > opposite side. The current Modified Category has a year break of 51
> > years,
> > > > this increases annually. While someone may have picked a '53 Stude
to
> > begin
> > > > their LSR career in 1970 it is now obvious that the vehicle is at a
> > > > disadvantage. Why not open an area for this person to run his car?
He
> > may
> > > > have a couple of sons that want to join us. As their interests and
> > 'need for
> > > > speed' develop over a period of time they(the sons) will surely
build a
> > > > car/bike to meet the demands of increased speed and challenges. I
> > believe
> > > > that by adding under 50 classes we may be increasing the
involvement in
> > our
> > > > beloved sport by younger generations which we all admit we need to
> > attract.
> > > >
> > > > Dan Warner
> > > > >>
> > > > Dan,
> > > > I agree with regards the older "modern" cars as defined by the
> > present
> > > > rules. A class change will make many "older" race cars competitive
that
> > are
> > > > at a disadvantage by todays rules, hopefully getting them back into
> > > > competition, possibly in the hands of the next generation of LSR
> > competitors.
> > > > Beyond those cars that could be "recycled" into competitive form
by
> > > > additional classes I see little value in additional classes. If
someone
> > new
> > > > is getting into LSR today and didn't have access to an "older" race
car
> > they
> > > > would tend to start from scratch with one of the better aerodynamic
> > designs.
> > > > Maybe I'm wrong, but if you're starting from scratch, building a
LSR
> > car
> > > > based on a production body/chassis, isn't the initial "carcass" cost
of
> > > > anything 1975 to the early 90's pretty constant? It seems that the
> > > > "carcass"cost of a 1949-75 production car to use in LSR would be
high
> > due to
> > > > the demand among restorers and street rodders for these cars.
> > > > I haven't gone back and reviewed all of the previous postings on
the
> > > > subject, so I may have my cutoff dates wrong. I do believe, however,
> > that I
> > > > have a pretty good handle on what the rule change is trying to
> > accomplish.
> > > > Regards the electronics and equipment restrictions on the
proposed
> > > > classes, that's all pretty much over my head. I just run a homemade
set
> > if IR
> > > > injectors, a 1950's Vertex mag, and no sensors or other data
gathering
> > > > equipment. My concession to "high-tech" is my weather station and a
> > hand-held
> > > > calculator to interpolate "pill" changes and density altitude.
> > > > Please explain your thoughts regards the next generation of LSR
> > > > competitors being inhibited by the present rules and encouraged by
more
> > > > classes. Other than recycling an LSR car handed down by their
> > predecessors I
> > > > can't figure how the proposed rule change would encourage them.
Maybe
> > I'm
> > > > missing something.
> > > > As you know, my son Brian is now taking an active part in my LSR
> > program,
> > > > setting records in my XXF/MR at Muroc and Bonneville this year.
Keeping
> > him
> > > > motivated and involved is one of my goals............Ardun Doug
King,
> > #1313
> > > > XXF/MR
> > >
|