2012 SCTA Rules CHANGES

[Glen]

Just trying to follow this has got me in the scotch early.
Have fun Dan.

[Bob Drury]

  So thats where that wonderful voice came from!  Happy Turkey Day to you, Glen.
  Don't forget the nap before the pie...............

[Stainless1]

Sounds like a hangover to me. LOL I won't buy anything cheaper at Trader Joe's than their own brand wine which is $4 a bottle. Maybe that is why I am not racing, I have a bigger budget for wine than the race cars, but don't have hangovers. LOL.

Maybe I can get Trader Joe's to sponsor me and then I can give out free samples after the races. Ha Ha Ha.

Tom G.

After?   Tom, nothing quenches your thirst more than cheap wine... hey Stan, pass me a box of that pink stuff 

[JimL]

Thanks for early look at the rules, as this has stopped me before I got too far.  This one has me befuddled:  Modified Production class

"Perimeter type frame engine cradle tubes must remain unmodified."  But it says you can change the steering head angle (not in my plans), which would be cutting and welding on the spars.  Also, earlier in the paragraph it says it's ok to remove or modify brackets.  Soooo, can you take the various wire harness and bodywork brackets off the perimeter tubes (sharp little guys that stick out the sides)?  I've also had to move the rear upper shock mount, to do the engine swap, but that appears to still be ok.  

Can you add brackets or mounts onto the original unmodified spars?  I'd rather weld my new engine mounts on direct, as opposed to running long tubes from another area, but I'll work around as necessary.  It doesn't appear the we are trying to prevent engine swaps (same brand), but if new mounts can't be added...hmmm.

Thoughts?  Talk to Van, Tom or Matt?  I'll try an email.
Regards, JimL

[dw230]

"Talk to Van, Tom or Matt?  I'll try an email" - Yes

Jim - best idea is to go to the source.

DW

[JimL]

Thanks Dan, I did send an email to Van.  I'll hold off on any more work on that bike, and work on the current A- bike while I'm waiting.

This "retirement" stuff is strange; busier than I ever was while "working".  More to do than time allows; reminds me of my 2-stroke days, when they'd run faster and faster until they seized (errrr, sorry folks, bad comparison for some of us "seniors")!

JimL

[dw230]

After some pushing the rule changes are now on the SCTA-BNI website, www.scta-bni.org. Click Whats New in left hand margin.

DW

[jl222]

After some pushing the rule changes are now on the SCTA-BNI website, www.scta-bni.org. Click Whats New in left hand margin.

DW

 Dan...I think the wording is wrong on competition coupe wings.

 5.D.1  '' The lowest portion of wing shall be AT LEAST 6in. above the higest point of the body''.

          Shouldn't that read NO MORE than 6 in. above the highest point of body?

         As it now states any wing would have to be AT LEAST 6 in above the roof line.

         If our Camaro was a comp coup I would like to have the wing mounted 6-12'' above the deck lid or below the roof
      line. Not 20'' min.above the deck.

     
 
                JL222

                         

[WOODY@DDLLC]

This "retirement" stuff is strange; busier than I ever was while "working".  More to do than time allows; reminds me of my 2-stroke days, when they'd run faster and faster until they seized (errrr, sorry folks, bad comparison for some of us "seniors")!

JimL

Jim there are just not enough days in the hours! 
Run till you seize - wait to cool off - then run again! Ring-ding-ding! 

[dw230]

John,

The rule is written as submitted by George Fields and Tom Burkland. As I wrote before, contact them if you think the design is wrong. Doesn't make sense to me either but, I have no control.

DW

[jl222]

John,

The rule is written as submitted by George Fields and Tom Burkland. As I wrote before, contact them if you think the design is wrong. Doesn't make sense to me either but, I have no control.

DW

   Must make sense to anyone that voted for it

   Limits on wing height are usually on how high their mounted not how low.

   No limit on heigth ....WOW unbelievable

               JL222   



           

 

[dw230]

"Wing width including side plates shall not be wider than the outside width of the body. The maximum allowable height of the wing including side plates shall not exceed 65 in. from the ground as measured to the highest part of the wing. The rear of the wing including side plates may not be set back more than 18 in. behind the rear of the body. The lowest portion of the wing shall be at least 6 in. above the highest point of the body.  The total wing area (measured by the fore-to-aft dimension times the side-to-side dimension on the top surface) shall not exceed 1152 square in. Multiple element wings are NOT allowed.

The portion in red looks like a maximum height to me. How should that sentence be written?

DW

[jl222]

"Wing width including side plates shall not be wider than the outside width of the body. The maximum allowable height of the wing including side plates shall not exceed 65 in. from the ground as measured to the highest part of the wing. The rear of the wing including side plates may not be set back more than 18 in. behind the rear of the body. The lowest portion of the wing shall be at least 6 in. above the highest point of the body.  The total wing area (measured by the fore-to-aft dimension times the side-to-side dimension on the top surface) shall not exceed 1152 square in. Multiple element wings are NOT allowed.

The portion in red looks like a maximum height to me. How should that sentence be written?

DW

 Yea right there in plain sight :-P

 But I still don't know the reasoning of the minimum height rule,which should be rewritten to be a minimum of 6 in. from
deck lid, or the minimum height taken out.

  JL222

 

[Peter Jack]

Just a guess John, but it might be to stop the construction of tunnels.

Pete

[dw230]

I have no idea as to why the wing design is written that way. You would have to ask the authors.

DW