Putting the handling issue aside for a moment. From what I can see most
of the old rear engined T's of the 1950's lacked a great deal of safety
equipment...roll bars for example. Doubt if there was much of a
bulkhead/firewall either. The list of dangerous factors can go on and on. No
wonder people got hurt in those things at that time.
Now granted there may be some magic speed at which these cars become
unmanageable, but maybe not. With 50 years of improvement in technology,
current rules allowing wings, and especially with today's dramatically
improved safety designs I think that these cars can be as safe as any /MR
running now.
John Beckett
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Dahlgren" <ddahlgren@snet.net>
To: <land-speed@autox.team.net>
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 11:44 AM
Subject: [Fwd: Re: [Re: Rear Engine Ts]]
> I feel personally if you can run an old belly tank or new
> one for that matter with pretty much identical Cg and
> wheelbase and track and probably weight then what is the
> diff? there are loads of cars at bonneville with terrible
> aero that just beg to fly at some pretty modest speeds. I
> have yet to see anyone tell someone you could not run a
> certain body in a certain class because the aero was
> terrible. or have they and I just missed it. I have stood at
> the starting line looking at a few full body cars and
> thought to myself either the person driving is completely
> fearless, going for a "Darwin " award or just had no clue
> why airplanes fly..
> Dave Dahlgren
> ( no I won't cite examples as that would name names and i
> am not into that)
>
> "Clay, Dale" wrote:
> >
> > Yes, but the aerodynamics are quite different. To my eye, it looks like
> > you'd get rear lift from the turtle deck without a spoiler or something.
> > You might be able to take care of that with a diffuser style belly pan
too.
> >
> > Don't get me wrong, Dave ... I'm in favor of trying to bring them back.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dave Dahlgren [mailto:ddahlgren@snet.net]
> > Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 9:22 AM
> > To: Clay, Dale
> > Cc: 'Phillip Landry'; Rick Yacoucci; land-speed@autox.team.net
> > Subject: Re: [Re: Rear Engine Ts]
> >
> > Which is drastically different than a belly tank in what
> > way? same aft CG same lack of a real good cage same short
> > wheelbase... so the difference is other than sheet metal?
> > visually remove the outer skin for these pics and what is
> > different that a little cage work would change. Sure looks
> > like the same car to me.
> > Dave
> >
> > "Clay, Dale" wrote:
> > >
> > > I was only referring to the safety issue.
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Dave Dahlgren [mailto:ddahlgren@snet.net]
> > > Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 8:51 AM
> > > To: Clay, Dale
> > > Cc: 'Phillip Landry'; Rick Yacoucci; land-speed@autox.team.net
> > > Subject: Re: [Re: Rear Engine Ts]
> > >
> > > and the difference between this and a belly tank is?
> > > Dave Dahlgren
> > >
> > > "Clay, Dale" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Very cool. But you might have a bit of trouble getting through tech
> > > today.
> > > > Wouldn't want to get this one shiny side down! It would be neat if
> > these
> > > > could come back ...
> > > >
> > > > Dale
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Phillip Landry [mailto:saltracer@netscape.net]
> > > > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 8:55 PM
> > > > To: Rick Yacoucci; land-speed@autox.team.net
> > > > Subject: Re: [Re: Rear Engine Ts]
> > > >
> > > > Rick,
> > > > this is scanned from the July 52 issue of Hot Rod. It's Fred
Carrillo's
> > > car
> > > > and the article states he ran 175. Phil
> > > >
> > > > http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumIndex?u=53220&a=6560596
> > > >
> > > > "Rick Yacoucci" <TurboRick@TurboRick.com> wrote:
> > > > Anyone have any pictures or links to pictures of these Rear Engined
T's?
> > > >
> > > > Rick
|