Malcolm, your input is well accepted by me anyway, my god, a combustion
engineer, and landspeed racing organizer and key player from the other side of
the pond, is an opinion I am sure most RESPECT.
Besides I don't want to run for "club" records, my SCTA record certificate says
"world land speed record", international input is essential and adds credence
to the record book.
Joe
Malcolm Pittwood wrote:
> Dave and the List.
>
> Do not know if my two pence is worth anything in this discussion so I held
> back, but Dave is right in my mind to prod those in control of the rules
> making process to justify decisions taken. We may not all agree with
> particular rules, but if the thought process behind them makes sense then
> we should accept them, 'or go play elsewhere'. If the thought process is
> flawed, then a rule can be amended in accordance with the set down
> procedures at the earliest moment, or if a really bad rule why not invoke
> the 'change without notice' clause in the rule book intro ?
>
> I do not run a rotary motored vehicle, nor do I expect to do so. I am a
> Brit and I am unlikely to run under SCTA rules on the dry lakes or
> concrete. I am not an SCTA member this year (I was in 1998) so I guess the
> rule makers would not wish to have 'outside' comments. Hey they might also
> call me a 'wannabee' something ! But .........
>
> Applying a 'factor' to equalise any form of difference is always going to
> be a problem for any rule making body. Whether it is in supercharging vs
> normal aspiration, turbocharging vs supercharging, Nitrous Oxide (oxygen)
> 'additives' vs Oxygen bearing fuels, 4stroke against 2 stroke or even
> rotary motion against reciprocating motion.
>
> The FIA have even shown that they have no standardisation in their rule
> book for rotary engines because instead of a factor for LSR classifications
> (as opposed to their circuit race classes) they have put such motors in a
> different class all together, as Mike Jenkins explained early on in this
> discussion.
> This sort of rule would mean more classes and as Chuck has said probably no
> competition at all for the few using rotary motors. The FIA do not run any
> Land Speed Racing.
>
> At the very least, if the SCTA are not able to sustain the reasons for a x3
> factor (and from the chat on this list I guess they cannot) of the swept
> volume of a non reciprocating engine, then by October 2001 Dave's request
> for x2 or x2.1 factor should be put to the 'Board' in writing in time for
> implementation in the 2002 rules.
>
> Having said that rule writing is not easy: - in 'II-2 Fuels' (two lines
> below the x3 factor data) - as a Combustion Engineer I can tell you all
> that Nitrous Oxide is NOT a fuel, has never been and cannot be. Yet the
> SCTA lists it in writing as "an approved fuel" for the 'fuel classes'. Why
> treat Nitrous Oxide any differently to a turbocharger or supercharger ? as
> all three fulfill the same goal of getting more air/fuel into the cylinder
> (or chamber if rotary). Thats another thread set to run .....
>
> Dave - we have listened and read your work. I agree you have a good well
> reasoned case. Good luck with the SCTA procedures to get this rule
> changed. (Keep calm in the face of provocation).
>
> Malcolm Pittwood
> Derby, England.
>
> (Just getting ready for the Speed Record Club Coniston gathering in the
> Lake District when we remember The Speed King - Donald Campbell, who lost
> his life in a WSR attempt 33 years ago yesterday).
|