Glen,
I don't want to seem to be picky but I think you imply that since the 77
car was designed some time ago, aero devices can't be used. I believe that
if it were known that there was a lift problem, Seth would certainly have
added something to prevent what happened. Aerodynamic downforce devices
added to this car would have been accepted.....wouldn't they?
Skip
At 02:21 PM 10/28/2003 -0800, Glen Barrett wrote:
>Gentlemen
>Without going into a lot of detail, I as a SCTA / BNI board member do as I
>am asked. Believe me the accidents are all inspected in detail and recorded.
>Anything that is discovered as the cause is investigated and if found to be
>a safety issue that can effect other vehicles it is taken to the accident
>committee anf if required a rule will be implimented to try to correct it
>from happening again. Last season we had an accident at El Mirage and new
>rulings were added to the rules. This one required adding full window / door
>nets and no non racing seats in the stock type vehicles.
>
>As far as #77 it was a 40 year old slingshot design vehicle. Compared to the
>modern day lakester that allow the use of wings for down force the vehicle
>did not use a wing. Wings are not a rule book requirement in the lakester
>class. The vehicle was upgraded a few years ago to meet all of the required
>roll cage and driver safety equipment. It was just that the vehicle was
>beyond the design of the vehicles of today as far as aerodynamic down force
>devices.
>These are Seth,s words. This I believe falls into the lessons learned and
>corrections, changes are being discussed by the rules and safety personnel.
>Glen
|