Super Fast Matt's new Youtube video

[bubruins]

@gowing What I'm saying is: if the only tool you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail.

There haven't been a whole lot of updates to safety in the SCTA rulebook since I bought my first one in 2013. There have been extraordinary leaps in accessible technology that can make land speed racing safer in that same time. It does not help that the SCTA accident info is never released in an age where information on every other subject is more accessible.

There are other land speed racing organizations out there, but in the US I think everyone regards the SCTA as the grandaddy of them all. There's room for improvement in every organization and it's a shame when the spotlight gets turned on an organization that's critical to the success of our sport, but that's often how things get better.

[racergeo]

  MRK has brought to mind a topic that needs addressed. In the June 25 issue of the SCTA RACING NEWS Lee Kennedy, with Tom Burkland wrote an article "Balancing Speed and Stability".Understanding CG and CP in land speed racing design. If you are a member of SCTA or BNI you would have received it. It should be required reading for just about everyone that is qualified to run on the long track. Red didn't have that Studebaker going very fast when he crashed violently.

  Bonneville can be a very unforgiving place to run a car at high speeds. On two occasions I was on the track when a storm came through and blew everything including portopotty's all over the place. One time it scared me so bad I swore I would never drive again. I have been on the track when it was so and bad that I was admonished be the starter to keep all the way to the right as far as possible because the track out in the middle was "real bad". On the run that got me into the 200 MPH club I was told to stay to the right in the two mile and on the left at the 3 1/2 mile because of wet track conditions. I have been there when the track was so rough I couldn't ride my bike on it yet they held an event. The Speed Demon was the first car on the track and "miraculously" ran 333 for fast time. Another time I nearly got my 4 wheel drive stuck by the starting line the salt was so wet and slushy. The SCTA is also responsible for running a safe event and putting driver safety above all else.

  The SCTA out of necessity has to run these events like a business, they have bills to pay and a responsibility to sponsors and racers that are heavily invested in the sport. BUT NOT at the expense of safety.

  So what I am saying is the racer needs to be informed and mindful of CP and CG and the SCTA needs to be mindful of the importance of a safe track.

[MRK]

Please don't get me wrong,
Saying arbitrary enforcement does not mean that I am advocating "looking the other way" when it comes to safety.

Rules - Requirements   =   Potato - Potato

Understood. I was involved with a situation where serious safety issues were addressed but after the fact and without penalty. Why? Because in my opinion, the competitor was a member of a particular club and was part of a legacy family.
All competitors should be treated equally when it comes to rule infractions. Especially ones concerning safety.

[MRK]

@gowing What I'm saying is: if the only tool you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail.

There haven't been a whole lot of updates to safety in the SCTA rulebook since I bought my first one in 2013. There have been extraordinary leaps in accessible technology that can make land speed racing safer in that same time. It does not help that the SCTA accident info is never released in an age where information on every other subject is more accessible.

There are other land speed racing organizations out there, but in the US I think everyone regards the SCTA as the grandaddy of them all. There's room for improvement in every organization and it's a shame when the spotlight gets turned on an organization that's critical to the success of our sport, but that's often how things get better.

Exactly and that's why the SCTA/BNI should make sure that the technology that makes racing safer is implemented. The organization sometimes appears to hedge on this type of stuff because it drives up the cost of racing but today, some of the technology that could save lives is nothing more than a sensor or two and a software upgrade. They are trying to keep it at a grassroots level but it's grown way beyond that. I'd bet that Mickey Thompson wanted the best safety technology available to him when he attempted to go 400. Why wouldn't the super fast racers want it today? I'm sure they do but it's not required. Make it required and they'll be happy to oblige.

[desotoman]

My gripe is like 80% of cars in some 200mph+ classes wouldn't pass reasonable standards for CoG and CoP just based on the architecture of what competitive car you can even build to fit the rules. Unsurprisingly CC accounts for many of the bad wrecks as a % of how many runs they make. I am surprised more MRs and RMRs don't have the same fate.

Curious, is this your opinion, or are you on a committee that investigates all the accidents that happen at Bonneville and El Mirage? Where are you getting your information to make such comments? How are you figuring out what the CoG is on any car you look at? Sometimes looks can be very deceiving.

Then there are great drivers, average drivers, and drivers who own the car, but should not drive. I have also seen great drivers, who's CoG was so far back in the car yet make fantastic runs over 300 mph. And never have an accident. Not every driver will have the same results in the same car.

There are a lot of variables in this sport.

[racergeo]

 
  MRK, I don't think "make it a requirement and they will be happy to oblige" is entirely true. I knew people personally that about $hit the bed and rolled in it when the HANS Device became a requirement. And it is something that saves lives. I'm sure Red would be a dead player but for all the safety requirements

[gowing]

I'm all for using the best tools in the box, especially when it comes to safety.

So for the sake of discussion,
How about we use AI to scan every vehicle to tell us if it is capable of completing its tasks before allowing it to compete?

AI could also take into account the condition of the course and impose suspension requirements depending on the vehicle.

We have the new technology to completely remove all biases, preferences and opinions from the people who make the rules.

Using tech to make things safer?  Some folks could be resistant to giving up control.
But, The times they are a changing.

[JAL AKA JL222]

  I would like Tom Burkland and Lee Kennedy to inform us what the cg and cp is on a top fuel dragster and Funny Car.

 In the book ''THE 1000 BHP GRANDPRIX CARS'' If 52% of the weight of the car was not on the rear wheels it was not competitive.

     Jl222
 

[MRK]

MRK, I don't think "make it a requirement and they will be happy to oblige" is entirely true. I knew people personally that about $hit the bed and rolled in it when the HANS Device became a requirement. And it is something that saves lives. I'm sure Red would be a dead player but for all the safety requirements

Okay but the HANS device is mandatory today and it saves lives. Complaining about a new rule is SOP for racers.
Do we know why Red crashed? Is there a safety system/device that could've kept the car from crashing or at least warned him that there was an issue? Red survived because of the current safety requirements, yes. That and he's a tough ol' SOB!

[bubruins]

I would like Tom Burkland and Lee Kennedy to inform us what the cg and cp is on a top fuel dragster and Funny Car.

 In the book ''THE 1000 BHP GRANDPRIX CARS'' If 52% of the weight of the car was not on the rear wheels it was not competitive.

     Jl222
 

Two false equivalents dont make one true. Worth noting both top fuel and grand prix cars typically burn as much HP towards downforce as the rules permit whereas in landspeed racing the fastest is often nearly no aerodynamic downforce.

[bubruins]

@desotoman no I'm totally outside and am frustrated I have limited safety data. I do have a database of incidents, but SCTA holds most od the data in unpublished run logs and any incident reports they may or may not have. When building a car for a fast record I feel I am forced to speculate on a lot of life or death events as they can impact decisions of my build project. I enjoy the design and building process.

To me, land speed racing shouldn't require a talented driver. I think the fact that this thread exists should substantiate this well. SFM rides motorcycles, has done track days on road courses in wild vehicles, and by all accounts Ive seen seems to be a capable driver. He didn't know how fast he was going at Bonneville by 100mph. The point of this whole thread is what consequences arose after one instance of imperfect driving, not what if all racers were as good as the best one. The safety standards cannot be written for only the best driver.

[bubruins]

@Gowing It must be harvest season over here in Tennessee. Feels like I'm having a chat with a straw man to figure out how many logical fallacies it'll take before the next unnecessary wreck at Bonneville.

[gowing]

@Gowing It must be harvest season over here in Tennessee. Feels like I'm having a chat with a straw man to figure out how many logical fallacies it'll take before the next unnecessary wreck at Bonneville.

?
Please clarify

[desotoman]

@bubruins, the best advice I can give you is to build your car with the best parts and safety equipment you can find. Since you have a 7 month old son, once your car is done let someone else drive the car who has driven LSR cars and comes recommended by someone you trust. Once the bugs are worked out of the car and it is deemed safe with no idiosyncrasies, then you can take over the driving chores. Have a good life insurance policy as we never know what the next pass will bring, and it might not be our fault at all. Like running over a $25 key chain which blew one of your tires which put you into a barrel roll and killed you, or worse you are brain dead for the rest of you life.

IMO after watching the video several times Matt made a couple of mistakes. One was building the car and not having good access to seeing the salt, but he is not the first one to build a vehicle that way. To me good vision is important at any speed. When he started the run he was overpowering the track in two different gears, Why? He is in a vehicle that has gone 300 mph, what is the rush when you are to run 150-175. Looking at the markers go by gives one a good idea of how fast you are going. And the SCTA is really watching your run. Sometimes you have to call Lee Kennedy as he follows you down the track in his truck to watch you. Also why did he not figure he needed to do XXXX RPM in 3rd gear to go 160? Pretty simple, instead relied on his instruments that malfunctioned.

I am not saying Matt is a bad driver, all I am saying is a little common sense would have helped him on his run.
In one of these runs you have to take the racer attitude out of your mind, and concentrate on doing what you were told to do. 

[SPARKY]

from my experience  B'vill driving is a lot like learning to fly lisc up runs are like the hours before being allowed of to solo  then you still have to get in more hours before passing you lisc, and being allowed to take passengers  most pilots don't really start becoming really up to speed until around 100 hours at b vill it is most likely around 50 miles in a more that one car   I.. IMO YMMV

PS I consider my self just starting to be  to pay attention to the car on a run instead of just stare at floating mountain a stay straight.  I have over 50 miles in 5 different  lakesters and streamliners over 200 and about 5 or six over 300 being an instrument rated pilot for sure helped because I had and instrument scan built in

Guys it is complicated  I said all of this to  SAY  at first you are more or less along for the ride because of tunnel vision that doesn't go away for a good while and some people never get pass it  I consider Lakesters the safest vech overm  200   AGAIN YMMV