csims@simshome.com wrote:
>
> I think that this type of class is a good idea.
> I would, in general be in favor of even
> fewer restrictions. There are 2 that come to mind:
>
> 1. Head porting. Why not?
I agree, if someone is going to go to all the trouble of bolting a
turbo charged VTEC motor into their Civic, why would the stop at head
porting? Seems silly to me.
> 2. Nitrous. Why not? The autocross bunch seems really opposed to
> nitrous. Why is this? Just curious. . .
Well, in the light of the thread, I'd have no problem with someone
showing up with a bottle-fed turbo Civic. If they want to blow up their
motor, who am I to stop them? However, I do see safety issues with
Nitrous cars. Now granted, I'm definitely not really familiar with
nitrous applications, so if any of you gas heads out there could
enlighten me, that'd be great. but I've seen a couple, and heard of many
more, cars making big kabooms with balls of fire and all that at the 1/4
mile. That's a safety concern for course workers who are going to be
relatively close in proximity to the grenade on wheels compared to that
at the 1/4 mile.
Plus, as someone already pointed out, compressed gas cylinders are
extremely dangerous if they get away. I too have seen an errant gas
cylinder punch through a concrete wall like wasn't even there. Well ok,
I didn't -see- it happen. I was running like mad for cover and when the
noise died down, I looked up to see the hole in wall where the bottle
went... =8-O
Allowing nitrous is effectively allowing bottle changes in the grid and
paddock areas, and -that- is a safety issue.
> The minimum weight idea is cool, especially since it could be tweaked
> to keep as many cars competitive as possible.
I think something like X-lbs/cc type of weight factor could be applied.
With a multiplier for forced aspiration.
-Josh2
--
Joshua Hadler '74 914 2.0 CSP/Bi - Hooligan Racing #29 - CONIVOR
'87 Quantum Syncro - aka stealth quattro
jhadler@rmi.net
http://rainbow.rmi.net/~jhadler/
|