So what is cheap about a set of hilborns????? RETRO TECH WORSHIP!! It;'s
not about money the computer to retune a GM car costs 698 LIST. I will
sell one to anyone on this list for 650 and as many as they have money
for.. It's NOT ABOUT MONEY!!!~!!!!!!! Does anyone actually read any ads
that don't have an old roadster in them.. This stuff has been this cheap
for years..
Dahlgren
"Parks, David" wrote:
>
> I am not suggesting that anyone would choose to run a stock EFI over a
> monster carb or some Hilborns. I just wanted to leave the door open in case
> someone wanted to run that combination for economic or other reasons. If it
> came stock, it shouldn't be banned, but I doubt that stock EFI will or stock
> computer controlled ignitions will be the items of choice.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dahlgren [mailto:dahlgren@uconect.net]
> Sent: Friday, September 08, 2000 11:07 AM
> To: Parks, David
> Cc: 'Dan Warner'; land-speed@autox.team.net
> Subject: Re: New Category
>
> Running the stock electronics is fine as long as you are going to run
> the stock Q-jet with the jets that came in it right.... What you are
> telling me is i bring out a '80 Camero with a tuned port I put on it and
> an MSD and Nitrous kit it won't be legal for this clas?? man what an odd
> combination eh....Man am I so glad that I try to work on the special
> construction catagory cars..
> Dahlgren
> I love rules that read more like wheels yes
> engine 1 or 2??
> fuel yes have some thanks..
> "Parks, David" wrote:
> >
> > It's great to see all the different opinions thrown out on this subject.
> > These are truly historic times when a whole bunch of racers and other
> > interested parties can become a part of a rules discussion. Usually I
> don't
> > even know what's happening until it is a done deal and I read about it in
> > the rule book.
> >
> > But you guys asked for it, so here's some more opinions...
> >
> > Name: I kind of like "Classic", because it doesn't make it sound as old
> as
> > "Nostalgia". And Classic kind of fits the general cutoff year discussion,
> > since I have heard of cars being referred to as classics when they are 20
> -
> > 25 years old.
> >
> > Cut-off year: I understand the feeling by some that the cut-off should
> be
> > earlier, like 74 or 69. I think that the whole idea of this class is to
> > preserve a place to race for a whole batch of cars that have been racing
> for
> > a while and also to have classes where people can build and race a car
> > without spending a small fortune to be competitive. I don't think that
> > setting the cut-off at 69 will accomplish that because, frankly, to keep
> > things "cheap", I think you will need the large numbers of cars built in
> the
> > 70's. There just aren't enough of the early cars left to think that a
> > significant number of them will be turned into race cars. And the 70's
> cars
> > are plentiful and cheap. Maybe that's why you see so many of them in land
> > Speed Racing. There are a lot of these cars already racing, and that is
> what
> > we are trying to preserve (I think). Now as for the debate of 74 vs. 81, I
> > am sure 81 was picked because of ease of enforcement. The difference in
> > aerodynamics between a 70 and a 81 Camaro are small compared to the
> > difference between that sort of Camaro and other "brick" cars out there.
> And
> > the 70 through 81 all look similar. More of a problem would be created by
> > cutting it off in the middle of these years as people would try to
> retrofit
> > 75 and up bodies with pre 75 parts to make them legal. It is already hard
> to
> > enforce rules regarding cars of "mixed" years. There are plenty of cars
> out
> > there that run body parts from several years and pick one to claim for
> > registration purposes. And frankly, who cares, as long as it looks like
> the
> > year they say it is. I know 81 doesn't fit everybody's idea of where the
> > break should be, but for practical purposes, it seems to work to separate
> > the really aerodynamic cars that came out in 82. I'm sorry that so much of
> > this discussion centers around Camaros, but let's face it: there are a lot
> > of them out there. Even for the other makes, aerodynamics seemed to change
> > around 82. There are just a whole lot of cars competing out there now that
> > conveniently fall into a cut-off of 81. And these are generally the cars
> > that are seeing their records broken by 20, 30, 50, 75 miles per hour.
> When
> > cars have raced for years looking for a couple of extra mph, it doesn't
> take
> > a rocket scientist (sorry Mayf) to see what will happen to them when the
> > record goes out of sight. And how many of you can afford to build the
> latest
> > "state-of-the art" car now? For ease of application, I vote for 81.
> >
> > Electronics: I don't think you should allow the new-fangled stuff that
> > controls everything with a computer unless the car originally came with
> it,
> > and then you can only use THAT one. Once again, I want to see categories
> > where mere mortals can afford to build a car. There are plenty of cars out
> > there that have set records using the old technology (you know, a coffee
> can
> > with 8 holes punched in it) and these are the cars we should try to
> > preserve. If older cars want to step up and run electro gadgets, they can
> > run in the current classes. Trying to have "entry-level" classes means
> > limiting more than just the body, and you have to admit that electronics
> > adds a whole new dimension of cost and complexity. I say keep the
> "Classic"
> > classes simple.
> >
> > Misc ramblings: As far as "soft records" I am amazed that anyone would
> > think that the proposed changes will "give" people Red Hats. Bear in mind
> > that the cars that will fall into these categories have been racing
> against
> > each other competitively for years. After excluding the new records of the
> > techno-cars, there are darn few soft records in these classes now. It is
> not
> > like they are going to go out and set a bunch of soft minimums for the new
> > classes. There will be existing records for all of them. Any new
> "minimums"
> > will be established for the current classes where the record has not
> already
> > been set by a techno-car. I am sure that new minimums will take into
> account
> > similar records set in similar classes.
> >
> > And for those of you that feel that there are too many classes already,
> the
> > logical end of that thought is that there is only one "real" land speed
> > record, and if you don't want to run against the 400+ mph record, don't
> come
> > out. I already made the comment that Land Speed racing is kind of like a
> > living, rolling museum. Where else can you see such a variety and so many
> > bitchin old cars run? This is what we need to preserve. The diversity of
> > classes hurts no one, and allows more people to feel a part of this
> > historical form of racing. It is not like we have to come up with a bigger
> > purse for the races since you can't win any money anyway. What is wrong
> with
> > allowing more people to compete? A few extra pages of classes in the rule
> > book isn't going to kill anyone, and if it allows more people to realize
> the
> > dream of racing on the salt, dirt or airstrip, it is a good thing.
> >
> > The cars that will fit into the new categories are already there and
> racing,
> > or can be built to race without mortgaging the house. What other form of
> > racing can show such diversity and enthusiasm? I hope these new categories
> > receive the blessings of the racers instead of resentment toward making
> the
> > "pond" bigger.
> >
> > David
|