autox
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [evolution-disc.] Legible numbers (was clarifications to FM

To: autox@autox.team.net
Subject: RE: [evolution-disc.] Legible numbers (was clarifications to FM
From: GaryK <garyk98@attbi.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 21:48:26 -0500
At 10:29 PM 9/16/02 -0400, Mark Sirota wrote:
>--On Monday, September 16, 2002 7:13 PM -0500 Andy Hollis
><awhollis@swbell.net> wrote:
> > Agreed.  FM is a pathological case because the numbers are (necessarily)
> > small due to very little sidepod on which to mount them.
>
>Sidepods on Formula 500 cars must be 9-12" high (FCS page 68, rule E.9).
>Plenty of room to fit an 8" high number.  And if for some reason the
>outside edge of the sidepod isn't high enough, there's no rule preventing a
>taller
>vertical surface from being mounted there on which taller numbers could be
>placed.  And there's also the side of the fuselage beside the driver, or the
>larger engine cover on some cars.

Agreed, there should be no reason for a less than standard 8" number with 
all the areas listed.

>Regardless, a rule is a rule...  And this one (3.7) certainly has real
>purpose.
>
> > I propose uniform size, typeface, and color for all of the car's numbers.
> > No mix n' match.  I also propose that covering up of permanently stickered
> > numbers be done completely, not with a diagonally mounted piece of thin
> > black tape.
>
>Bravo!  (But you knew I was gonna say that.)

We use the wide Scotch Plastic Tape to cover the 1 when the first driver is 
running.  Great stuff, but a bit expensive.  With yellow numbers on a blue 
background we use blue or black to cover the 1.  We put it on a little bit 
of a diagonal angle to cover most of the number.

> > Well, the rule is 4.4.C, but its open to interpretation as to what "legal"
> > is in this case.  Does the car have to be re-protested if someone actually
> > cared?  Or should the PC sign off on the fix?  I'm sure reasonable people
> > can differ on this one.
>
>4.4.C clearly states "withdrawn from the day's competition".  This happened
>on the second day.  And 4.4.C also is about withdrawn for mechanical
>difficulty, not for DSQ.  Still, I agree with your point -- was the car
>disqualified, or the driver?  From just the Tuesday runs, or from the entire
>event?  I think in the future we'll have to ask the PC to be more clear on
>these points.
>
>Mark


Gary

///  unsubscribe/change address requests to majordomo@autox.team.net  or try
///  http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo
///  Partial archives at http://www.team.net/archive


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>