Not an odd question.
This is a problem within every amateur racing venue: the problem of keeping
costs equalized and reasonable.
Within the Flathead ranks two schools of thought prevail. Grind ports into
the water jackets (after they are filled with epoxy or aluminum) or grind
ports like they did in the old days and not hit water. Some of us (myself
included) prefer to do it like they did in the old days so I am racing every
flathead racer back to the beginning.
The rules encourage innovation and improvements, so sophisticated stuff
like Ron Main's is allowed. What we object to is the terrific cost of his
operation. When he first showed up with the Street Roadster it was rumored
that he had $80,000 worth of dyno time on Dick Landy's dyno. Of course he
did none of his own work, and Landy did it for him. We can only speculate
as to how much has been spent on the roadster, lakester, and streamliner.
This terrible cost in an amateur sport makes it tough for the rest of us to
compete.
Thank goodness for Jimmy Stevens, McCain & Houtz, Kenny Kloth, and others
who by their own hard work make almost as much power. Thank goodness for
Jack Costella who by his own hard work made a wonderful aerodynamic car that
will go very fast with a flathead (even though he took away one of my
records). These guys are the real hot rodders. They don't brag about it,
either. Ron Main didn't make many friends the first time out because he
spent a lot of time bragging about how wonderful his flathead was.
Dave the Hayseed
----- Original Message -----
From: "DrMayf" <drmayf@teknett.com>
To: <land-speed@autox.team.net>
Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2001 2:14 PM
Subject: An Odd Question...
> Whenever I come back from the races, I always get an odd thought in my
head.
> This time it is a rules type question in a class that I will never compete
> in. It has to do with watching NTIII and Flatfire racing against each
other.
> I am browsing the rule book and the program guide and it says both are in
> XF/BGS class. I then read the XF engine rules and it of course explicitly
> states that the engines must be of the vintage nature. Then it very
> explicitly states that any modifications must be simple in nature. Oh? I
> remember the Flatfire engine articles where the engine modifications were
> truly monstrous in nature (ie machining out the valley of the flathead,
> building a new and completely different valley which lets the exhaust come
> out the top of the engine, and welding allof this in place). So what part
of
> "simple" and in keeping with the spirit of the times of the the flatheads,
> is this? Does the term "simple" mean in the saying or doing? Such as
"let's
> go to the Moon" which is a simple statement but really really compex like
> the flatfire motor. Just an odd thought.
>
>
> mayf, the red necked ignorant desert rat in Pahrump.
///
/// land-speed@autox.team.net mailing list
/// To unsubscribe send a plain text message to majordomo@autox.team.net
/// with nothing in it but
///
/// unsubscribe land-speed
///
///
|