Perhaps my misinterpretation of the rules concerning windshield mounting
versus side window mounting. In reference to page 54 (Altered Coupe) my
interpretation ( as well as many others within the altered class) is that
side windows must be in the stock location, or fastened to the inside of the
window openings. Many Altereds have their windshields ( and rear windows)
mounted in such a manner that they are flush with the window frame. This in
my mind complies with the rules since removing the window trim and filling
in the gap flushes the window.
Darrell Ferguson
BLACK RADON ENGINEERING
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Beckett [SMTP:johnbeck@blueridge.cc.nc.us]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 1999 4:11 PM
> To: Ferguson, Darrell; land-speed@autox.team.net
> Subject: RE: Glass
>
> Did I miss something in the rule book on flush mounted glass? Page
> 54 of
> my SCTA rule book says that "Windows must be mounted in the stock fashion
> or fastened to the inside of the window openings". And on page 55 under
> /GC
> it says "The following items must be retained in the stock location and of
> the same year as the body: ....windows,...window trim,... That doesn't
> sound like a flush mount to me.
> Now for /CC on page 52 it says "Window openings may be covered by
> flat
> plates on the outside of the opening".
>
> John Beckett
>
>
>
> At 09:01 AM 5/25/99 -0700, Ferguson, Darrell wrote:
> >Kvach- as to your e-mail concerning aerodynamics in the altered class,
> >particularly in reference to front airdams, the rule has been changed so
> >that you can build any airdam you wish, provided it does not extend
> farther
> >forward than the leading edge of the front bumper. Also as to mounting of
> >glass, you can flush front windows, the rule states that the windows must
> be
> >mounted in their stock location. When removing window trim, this smooths
> out
> >that surface, and allows the car to still be legal. Finally, tech
> inspection
> >is not merely for safety inspection. I watched last year as a car that
> had
> >entered the altered class was forced to run in comp coupe because of an
> >illegal front end. I can tell this will be a fun one at tech this year
> for
> >those of us with new cars !
> >
> > Darrell Ferguson
> > BLACK RADON ENGINEERING
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Beth Butters [SMTP:bbutters@dmi.net]
> >> Sent: Monday, May 24, 1999 7:35 PM
> >> To: 'land-speed@autox.team.net'; 'dferguso@ebmail.gdeb.com'
> >> Subject: RE: To Duct or not to Duct, That is the Question...
> >>
> >> The alteration youguys see on studebakers hasn't
> >> been legal for some time, many of these cars have been on the salt for
> 30
> >> or 40 years and this was a popular thing to do before it was made
> >> illegal . These cars have this modification grandfathered to them.
> Just
> >> like there are a few 4 wheel drive roadsters that are no longer legal.
> >> Like I said earlier, walking around the pits to see what is legal in a
> >> class will get you into trouble, and know one preticularly cars what
> you
> >> do as long as its not a safety item until you qualify for a record.
> If
> >> set a record in my class with a car that I see as not conforming to
> the
> >> rules I ' d consider protesting you. You need to remember that when
> you
> >> go thew inspection the inspectors are not looking at you car as to
> >> class conformity, they are doing a safety inspection. So follow what
> >> the rules say in altered, no areodynamic alterations to the body
> excepting
> >> the covering of openings with flat plates , no airdams unless!
> >> !
> >> they are fActory, no flush mounting of window glass, if you want to
> >> build a comp. Coup build one. If you are building an altered from a
> >> modern marshmellow car its more areo stock than I could ever get my
> >> Studebaker, Whatr they have going for them is looks and overall
> length.
> >> In my opinion you will get into hot water venting high pressure areas
> >> thew body panels. L. Kvach Butters BB/G Alt. CC #1392
> >>
> >> ----------
> >> From: dferguso@ebmail.gdeb.com[SMTP:dferguso@ebmail.gdeb.com]
> >> Sent: Monday, May 24, 1999 4:45 AM
> >> To: land-speed@autox.team.net
> >> Subject: Re: To Duct or not to Duct, That is the Question...
> >>
> >> hello mayfield,(racers),i pretty much agree with your interpretation ,
> and
> >> along with yours would come the logical deduction (no pun intended)
> that
> >> ANY penetration consists of three elements, an intake, a ducting
> section,
> >> and a vent, weather it is a home air conditioning unit like your
> example,
> >> or the other extreme such as a hole in a piece of aluminum foil, in
> which
> >> the "intake" would be one face of the foil, the "duct" would be about
> >> .008"
> >> long (the thickness of the material), and the "vent" would be the other
> >> face of the foil which the medium (air in our case) flowed towards.
> >> therefore, a commercial naca duct placed in a body panel would also
> >> consist
> >> of these three elements, which leads us to the original question - is a
> >> naca duct in a hood or fender considered a duct or a vent (or both !)
> >> ?????
> >>
> >> regards,
> >> doug ferguson
> >> black radon engineering
> >>
> >>
> >
>
|