Roadsters run in a category called Vintage. Some of the mails posted seem to
want to keep the classic lakes cars in tact. If we build long wheelbase,
rear engine roadsters similar to a Top Fuel or Fed Mogal(sp) car where is
the classic look?
The answer would seem to be to build 'em like they were. Then the handling
problem would return. Vintage is for the classic car - if you want to build
a rear engine lakester then run in lakester class.
Dan W
----- Original Message -----
From: tim cunha <tfc1932@hotmail.com>
To: <saltracer@awwwsome.com>; <lsr_man@yahoo.com>
Cc: <FastmetalBDF@aol.com>; <landspeedracer@email.msn.com>;
<Flowbench@aol.com>; <Dale.Clay@mdhelicopters.com>; <fosterap@flash.net>;
<kturk@ala.net>; <land-speed@autox.team.net>
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 5:02 PM
Subject: Re: Rear Engine T's
> tom actually don waites 27 roadster was 112" long. my 32 is only what 106"
> stock. don told me the cars were getting loose as they got to 200mph.
> Having the driver in front was an issue and it was in other streamliners
> where there was no nose to use as a reference point for atitude
adjustments.
> but i agree with the others, that any rear engined 27 with a long enough
> wheelbase and possible aero aides would track and drive as well as any
other
> rear engined car. don waite has been frustrated with this and has wanted
to
> build another 27 with a rear engine to go get some records but the rules
do
> not allow it. again rules establised in 1959 for good reason, but also to
e
> reevaluated today. Fred larson sure enjoyed the front engined modified
> roadster rules for many years with his record breaking 27 (which is being
> restored, as well as don waites 27). how could you get to run a long 27
rear
> engined car as a mule in what class, lakester? just some thoughts from a
> newbie
>
>
> >From: "Thomas E. Bryant" <saltracer@awwwsome.com>
> >Reply-To: "Thomas E. Bryant" <saltracer@awwwsome.com>
> >To: Dick J <lsr_man@yahoo.com>
> >CC: FastmetalBDF@aol.com, landspeedracer@email.msn.com,
Flowbench@aol.com,
> > Dale.Clay@mdhelicopters.com, fosterap@flash.net, kturk@ala.net,
> >land-speed@autox.team.net
> >Subject: Re: Rear Engine T's
> >Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 08:46:56 -0800
> >
> >As I understand the issue, there were a couple of things that
> >contributed to their demise. We had several crash in 1959. The reasoning
> >went something like this. 1. they are a wing and tend to fly at speed.
> >2. the position of the driver was such that the car was out of shape
> >before the driver realized it. These were stock wheel base cars I
believe.
> >
> >Tom, Redding CA - #216 D/GCC
>
> _________________________________________________________________
|