-
Hi Guest!
You can help ensure that British Car Forum (BCF) continues to provide a great place to engage in the British car hobby! If you find BCF a beneficial community, please consider supporting our efforts with a subscription.
There are some perks with a member upgrade!**Upgrade Now**
(PS: Subscribers don't see this gawd-aweful banner
Hey - did you know if you click on the title of a thread it will take you to the first unread post since you last visited that thread?
but were afraid to ask: 
STOP!! Never post your email address in open forums. Bots can "harvest" your email! If you must share your email use a Private Message or use the 
smilie in place of the real @
Pretty Please - add it to our Events forum(s) and add to the calendar! >> 
SCCA Runoffs in Topeka Kansas
- Thread starter Hap Waldrop
- Start date
Share this page
Tim Hollister
Jedi Trainee
Offline
Hap,
Many thanks for the information -- appreciated! I suspected as much regarding the weight break but was looking for confirmation. (even though I very, very, seldom post, I read the Prod board daily)
I am somewhat surprised the 948 is going by the wayside so quickly though. It was certainly interesting reading back when you were addressing the possibility of the hybrid car and the reasons for its necessity. Rods were the limiting factor, then cranks, and now finally the actual engine blocks themselves breaking. Understandable though with what we were trying to get out of them. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazyeyes.gif
I may put both my cars in H Prod next season or I may keep mine in F and the one my son drives in H. We'll see.
(One thing we'll see for sure is if my car will even be allowed to run with the current cage!! What a shame -- the roll cage fiasco!)
Anyway, thanks again and have great day!! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cheers.gif
Tim
Many thanks for the information -- appreciated! I suspected as much regarding the weight break but was looking for confirmation. (even though I very, very, seldom post, I read the Prod board daily)
I am somewhat surprised the 948 is going by the wayside so quickly though. It was certainly interesting reading back when you were addressing the possibility of the hybrid car and the reasons for its necessity. Rods were the limiting factor, then cranks, and now finally the actual engine blocks themselves breaking. Understandable though with what we were trying to get out of them. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazyeyes.gif
I may put both my cars in H Prod next season or I may keep mine in F and the one my son drives in H. We'll see.
(One thing we'll see for sure is if my car will even be allowed to run with the current cage!! What a shame -- the roll cage fiasco!)
Anyway, thanks again and have great day!! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cheers.gif
Tim
aeronca65t
Great Pumpkin
Offline
Interesting reading...
There are still lots and lots of 948s in vintage....I was on the track with at least 5 of them in my last vintage event (Summit). I guess the vintage stuff will end up being the "home" for a lot of these motors.
Also, can you explain the issue with the new roll cage rules? (I'm just being curious....I know it won't really affect me).
There are still lots and lots of 948s in vintage....I was on the track with at least 5 of them in my last vintage event (Summit). I guess the vintage stuff will end up being the "home" for a lot of these motors.
Also, can you explain the issue with the new roll cage rules? (I'm just being curious....I know it won't really affect me).
Tim Hollister
Jedi Trainee
Offline
Nial (hope I've got that spelled right! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif)
WARNING! VERY LONG POST AHEAD!!
I've got an SCCA National level 948 that I bought from a well-known racer a couple of years ago and have yet to fire it up. I'll have to dig up the dyno sheet but it was between 90 and 95 horsepower. Dry-sumped too though that can be undone. I'll probably hang onto it awhile longer as a spare for the kid's car.
The roll cage fiasco? I'm not fully qualified to explain it as it goes back several years before I got involved in road racing. My qualification comes from owning a car that may be declared ineligible to run as soon as 1/1/2007 and therefore feeling like a victim of the club I am a member of. By the way, this car (the lead car in my avatar) won the 2000 F Production Runoffs race while being driven by a previous owner. This ongoing situation is one of a couple of things about the SCCA that causes me to have a love/hate relationship with the club. Anyway, to try to keep long story as short as possible...
Back in the mid '90's there was a move to modify the main hoops in the roll cages so the main hoop would extend across the width of the car thereby getting rid of the cages that loop up over the driver's head and right back down. A deadline was given and some folks modified their cars and some didn't. Some of those that did not were issued a "Gold Card" or "Gold Seal" allowing them to continue to run with the "non-compliant" cages. (I bought my first car and it had a Gold Seal in the logbook. I thought that was a good thing as it stated the cage was compliant! I was uninformed and dead wrong!) Over the years, various deadlines have been issued and rescinded. No one seems to be able even recall the reason for the proposed changes -- safety or a perceived aerodynamic advantage.
The SCCA has/had a drawing in the GCR that is/was labeled as "recommended." Before the Board of Directors now is a proposed rule making the "recommended" cage required 1/1/2007 unless one was issued a Gold Card before sometime in 2005.
Two things wrong with that. No one I am aware of knew Gold Cards could still be issued therefore we didn't ask for them. I seriously doubt they would have been issued even if folks had asked!
And it splits cars that are basically built the same into two groups -- those with the cars with Gold Cards that can run another three seasons as they are, and those that must fork out the cash now for new cages to run next year. IMO, inequitable and unfair to the latter group -- especially guys like me who got involved after this mess had started and did not know about it.
And this has see-sawed back and forth several times since. Stop-go-stop-go. Spend the money, oops, sorry, you don't have to spend (waste) your money, oops again, yes you do! Sometimes I feel like removing the good parts from the car, breaking out the acetylene torch, and cutting up the car. And then sending it to the SCCA headquarters in Topeka!
Also, the SCCA ordered an engineering study and testing of their recommended cage. The SCCA's own recommended cage failed the tests they sanctioned. And the results of the test were sealed however a few copies did get out. I don't know if I still have the one I had but just how ridiculousl can one organization get?
So why am I likely to be required to waste my money? Some people are mad because they spent the money to comply while others were not required to? Some as yet undefined safety reason? Or some ill-perceived competition advantage? If you were to ask around, you'd likely get all three answers. I find none of them acceptable and I like my car the way it is!
Then there was the reduction in life span for SFI certified restraint systems from five years to two years. The SCCA did that on the SFI's recommendation based on a 30 plus year old study of fibers exposed to ultraviolet light -- not even on a recent study of woven harnesses. I used to run TeamTech harnesses in both cars but now I run cheaper stuff I do not care for. Who pays the bills for SFI? The manufacturers of the safety equipment! Conflict of interest? Ya think?
Head and neck restraints -- another sore spot. Lots of folks like the Isaac system and many have spent the money for it. The SCCA BOD just rejected a proposed rule that would have outlawed the Isaac devices so on the surface it looks like I could safely invest in a couple -- one for me and one for my son. BUT with SCCA's wishy washy track record, I've a gut feeling this is not over yet and I could still be wasting my money.
So as you can see, I feel the SCCA would have me spend (waste or potentially waste) my money on items I do not feel are necessary for my, or my son's, safety.
The SCCA wants to retain members and attract new members. IMO the SCCA itself is running people off! I know I'd like to take part in some SCCA events and even earn the coveted national license however because of the way the SCCA is, I have only turned a wheel in one SCCA event. That was a joint driver's school between the SCCA and Waterford Hills (WHRRI). And that was two years ago now.
Anyway, I've rambled on here far longer than I intended. The above is certainly not complete however I do feel it is pretty accurate especially in how it affects me, and other potential members/racers.
Let me say this loud and clear. It is absolutely wonderful to have an organization like Waterford Hills, its people and facilities only three miles from my house!
Hap, Jeff and/or Jolly, please feel free to jump in here if you want! I'm only an SCCA member who has chosen to date to not partake in the SCCA's club racing only due to the SCCA's own actions over the years. Don't get me wrong, I have got myself fired up several times and was "going to do it" only to be beat back down by the SCCA.
Love - hate. Love - hate. Ya gotta love, err, hate it!
Tim
PS: Wish the vintage organizations were more active in these parts. I could be convinced!
WARNING! VERY LONG POST AHEAD!!
I've got an SCCA National level 948 that I bought from a well-known racer a couple of years ago and have yet to fire it up. I'll have to dig up the dyno sheet but it was between 90 and 95 horsepower. Dry-sumped too though that can be undone. I'll probably hang onto it awhile longer as a spare for the kid's car.
The roll cage fiasco? I'm not fully qualified to explain it as it goes back several years before I got involved in road racing. My qualification comes from owning a car that may be declared ineligible to run as soon as 1/1/2007 and therefore feeling like a victim of the club I am a member of. By the way, this car (the lead car in my avatar) won the 2000 F Production Runoffs race while being driven by a previous owner. This ongoing situation is one of a couple of things about the SCCA that causes me to have a love/hate relationship with the club. Anyway, to try to keep long story as short as possible...
Back in the mid '90's there was a move to modify the main hoops in the roll cages so the main hoop would extend across the width of the car thereby getting rid of the cages that loop up over the driver's head and right back down. A deadline was given and some folks modified their cars and some didn't. Some of those that did not were issued a "Gold Card" or "Gold Seal" allowing them to continue to run with the "non-compliant" cages. (I bought my first car and it had a Gold Seal in the logbook. I thought that was a good thing as it stated the cage was compliant! I was uninformed and dead wrong!) Over the years, various deadlines have been issued and rescinded. No one seems to be able even recall the reason for the proposed changes -- safety or a perceived aerodynamic advantage.
The SCCA has/had a drawing in the GCR that is/was labeled as "recommended." Before the Board of Directors now is a proposed rule making the "recommended" cage required 1/1/2007 unless one was issued a Gold Card before sometime in 2005.
Two things wrong with that. No one I am aware of knew Gold Cards could still be issued therefore we didn't ask for them. I seriously doubt they would have been issued even if folks had asked!
And it splits cars that are basically built the same into two groups -- those with the cars with Gold Cards that can run another three seasons as they are, and those that must fork out the cash now for new cages to run next year. IMO, inequitable and unfair to the latter group -- especially guys like me who got involved after this mess had started and did not know about it.
And this has see-sawed back and forth several times since. Stop-go-stop-go. Spend the money, oops, sorry, you don't have to spend (waste) your money, oops again, yes you do! Sometimes I feel like removing the good parts from the car, breaking out the acetylene torch, and cutting up the car. And then sending it to the SCCA headquarters in Topeka!
Also, the SCCA ordered an engineering study and testing of their recommended cage. The SCCA's own recommended cage failed the tests they sanctioned. And the results of the test were sealed however a few copies did get out. I don't know if I still have the one I had but just how ridiculousl can one organization get?
So why am I likely to be required to waste my money? Some people are mad because they spent the money to comply while others were not required to? Some as yet undefined safety reason? Or some ill-perceived competition advantage? If you were to ask around, you'd likely get all three answers. I find none of them acceptable and I like my car the way it is!
Then there was the reduction in life span for SFI certified restraint systems from five years to two years. The SCCA did that on the SFI's recommendation based on a 30 plus year old study of fibers exposed to ultraviolet light -- not even on a recent study of woven harnesses. I used to run TeamTech harnesses in both cars but now I run cheaper stuff I do not care for. Who pays the bills for SFI? The manufacturers of the safety equipment! Conflict of interest? Ya think?
Head and neck restraints -- another sore spot. Lots of folks like the Isaac system and many have spent the money for it. The SCCA BOD just rejected a proposed rule that would have outlawed the Isaac devices so on the surface it looks like I could safely invest in a couple -- one for me and one for my son. BUT with SCCA's wishy washy track record, I've a gut feeling this is not over yet and I could still be wasting my money.
So as you can see, I feel the SCCA would have me spend (waste or potentially waste) my money on items I do not feel are necessary for my, or my son's, safety.
The SCCA wants to retain members and attract new members. IMO the SCCA itself is running people off! I know I'd like to take part in some SCCA events and even earn the coveted national license however because of the way the SCCA is, I have only turned a wheel in one SCCA event. That was a joint driver's school between the SCCA and Waterford Hills (WHRRI). And that was two years ago now.
Anyway, I've rambled on here far longer than I intended. The above is certainly not complete however I do feel it is pretty accurate especially in how it affects me, and other potential members/racers.
Let me say this loud and clear. It is absolutely wonderful to have an organization like Waterford Hills, its people and facilities only three miles from my house!
Hap, Jeff and/or Jolly, please feel free to jump in here if you want! I'm only an SCCA member who has chosen to date to not partake in the SCCA's club racing only due to the SCCA's own actions over the years. Don't get me wrong, I have got myself fired up several times and was "going to do it" only to be beat back down by the SCCA.
Love - hate. Love - hate. Ya gotta love, err, hate it!
Tim
PS: Wish the vintage organizations were more active in these parts. I could be convinced!
aeronca65t
Great Pumpkin
Offline
Tim:
Yes, you spelled Nial correctly! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumbsup.gif
I am a former SCCA member, and I hate to say it, but this type of stuff is part of the reason that I am no longer a member.
I still have lot of friends who are SSCA-ers, so it's not the club-members....it's the "manangement" (using that term somewhat loosely).
I think that part of the reason that the vintage clubs have grown is due to people like me, who just want to go out and have some fun with their cars. And surprisingly, despite the (generally) more valuable cars in vintage, the racing is often cheaper because we aren't *killed* with pointless rules.
This is also the reason why regular club-racing groups like WHRRI, EMRA (my club) and NASA have done OK....many of the members of these smaller grassroots clubs are disgruntled former-SCCA members. NASA in particular has been very successful in marketing itself as an alternative to the the SCCA on a nationwide level. EMRA was started (in '69) by some of my friends who felt the SCCA costs had gotten out of hand....yes, even back then.
And the grassroots clubs seems to have more true amateurs like me. EMRA has it's share of big motorhomes and giant car carriers, but we also have dozens of race cars that have probably been built for under $2000 (including mine). Please note that my little econo-racer has already been in 12 races this year at five different tracks (with some enduros and some vintage events) and I still have at least three races left. My total '07 campaigning costs for #11 will probably be less than $4200, including tires, car maintenance, entrys, meals, gas and some decent hotels. My local SCCA pals could never come close to that level of cost versus seat-time.
Your cage fiasco is just that. If such changes really need to be brought about, they need to be phased in so that everyone has a fair chance at compliance.Creating a group of "Haves" (with Gold Cards) and "Have Nots' (without the Gold Card) is an arrogant and surefire way to irritate the folks who are supposed to be your constituents. It's interesting that the SCCA seems to have "buried" the results of the failed engineering test....gee, I wonder why?
I'm the EMRA RaceChair and I HATE the restraint rule! I get at least two notes a week about it. When the SCCA went over to it, we were basically forced by our insurance carrier to follow suit. So now, many of us buy cheezy, Chinese-made harnesses because the good ones we bought are three years old. By the way, last time I needed new belts, I paid extra for the "FIA approved" belts so that they would be good for five years. They were also Chinese imports that don't look any different to my eye than the 2-year belts (except for the FIA tag). Someone is making a buck off that deal.
As far as head restraints, I am still waiting for one I like. To me, there are a lot of reasons why the Isaac looks better than the HANS (and not just cost). There is also an opinion among some of us that the older-syle HANS device may actually create a safety problem in some applications. I would spend the money if I felt there was a system that really looked like it made me safer....I'm unconvinced at this point.
By the way, I would love to tow out and meet up with you and Jeff at Waterford, but I've still got this job-thing for a few more years.....a weekend at Waterford would be a great retirement gift to myself.
Hang in there, and don't forget....we're doing all this for *fun*, right! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/jester.gif
Yes, you spelled Nial correctly! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumbsup.gif
I am a former SCCA member, and I hate to say it, but this type of stuff is part of the reason that I am no longer a member.
I still have lot of friends who are SSCA-ers, so it's not the club-members....it's the "manangement" (using that term somewhat loosely).
I think that part of the reason that the vintage clubs have grown is due to people like me, who just want to go out and have some fun with their cars. And surprisingly, despite the (generally) more valuable cars in vintage, the racing is often cheaper because we aren't *killed* with pointless rules.
This is also the reason why regular club-racing groups like WHRRI, EMRA (my club) and NASA have done OK....many of the members of these smaller grassroots clubs are disgruntled former-SCCA members. NASA in particular has been very successful in marketing itself as an alternative to the the SCCA on a nationwide level. EMRA was started (in '69) by some of my friends who felt the SCCA costs had gotten out of hand....yes, even back then.
And the grassroots clubs seems to have more true amateurs like me. EMRA has it's share of big motorhomes and giant car carriers, but we also have dozens of race cars that have probably been built for under $2000 (including mine). Please note that my little econo-racer has already been in 12 races this year at five different tracks (with some enduros and some vintage events) and I still have at least three races left. My total '07 campaigning costs for #11 will probably be less than $4200, including tires, car maintenance, entrys, meals, gas and some decent hotels. My local SCCA pals could never come close to that level of cost versus seat-time.
Your cage fiasco is just that. If such changes really need to be brought about, they need to be phased in so that everyone has a fair chance at compliance.Creating a group of "Haves" (with Gold Cards) and "Have Nots' (without the Gold Card) is an arrogant and surefire way to irritate the folks who are supposed to be your constituents. It's interesting that the SCCA seems to have "buried" the results of the failed engineering test....gee, I wonder why?
I'm the EMRA RaceChair and I HATE the restraint rule! I get at least two notes a week about it. When the SCCA went over to it, we were basically forced by our insurance carrier to follow suit. So now, many of us buy cheezy, Chinese-made harnesses because the good ones we bought are three years old. By the way, last time I needed new belts, I paid extra for the "FIA approved" belts so that they would be good for five years. They were also Chinese imports that don't look any different to my eye than the 2-year belts (except for the FIA tag). Someone is making a buck off that deal.
As far as head restraints, I am still waiting for one I like. To me, there are a lot of reasons why the Isaac looks better than the HANS (and not just cost). There is also an opinion among some of us that the older-syle HANS device may actually create a safety problem in some applications. I would spend the money if I felt there was a system that really looked like it made me safer....I'm unconvinced at this point.
By the way, I would love to tow out and meet up with you and Jeff at Waterford, but I've still got this job-thing for a few more years.....a weekend at Waterford would be a great retirement gift to myself.
Hang in there, and don't forget....we're doing all this for *fun*, right! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/jester.gif
D
Deleted member 3577
Guest
Guest
Offline
[ QUOTE ]
Back in the mid '90's there was a move to modify the main hoops in the roll cages
[/ QUOTE ]
Next year the 2 door bar rule is suppose to be enforced.
(passenger side)
Once again I find myself noncompliant. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif
Back in the mid '90's there was a move to modify the main hoops in the roll cages
[/ QUOTE ]
Next year the 2 door bar rule is suppose to be enforced.
(passenger side)
Once again I find myself noncompliant. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif
AngliaGT
Great Pumpkin
Offline
Heck,back in '81 we called it the "Spendy Car Club of America!
Running Showroom Stock "C",most of us drove our cars to the track & were on tight budgets ($200/race).
I would love to drive in competition again,but don't
see it financially possible.
Man,I miss the "Old Days"!
- Doug
Running Showroom Stock "C",most of us drove our cars to the track & were on tight budgets ($200/race).
I would love to drive in competition again,but don't
see it financially possible.
Man,I miss the "Old Days"!
- Doug
Tim Hollister
Jedi Trainee
Offline
Nial,
Fully understand and agree with your post above!
By the way, private message sent...
Tim
Fully understand and agree with your post above!
By the way, private message sent...
Tim
Tim Hollister
Jedi Trainee
Offline
[ QUOTE ]
Heck,back in '81 we called it the "Spendy Car Club of America!...
[/ QUOTE ]
Doug, that's the funniest thing I've heard today! If only it weren't so true! If you don't mind, can I use that line? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/yesnod.gif
Tim
Heck,back in '81 we called it the "Spendy Car Club of America!...
[/ QUOTE ]
Doug, that's the funniest thing I've heard today! If only it weren't so true! If you don't mind, can I use that line? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/yesnod.gif
Tim
Nial,
As an individual who used ( and I stress the term used) to race a G Mod sports racer let me tell you a bit about safety in a racecar. I was at Sebring October 23, 2004. I was racing in the vintage group in my G Mod Beach Mk4 (see Beach history on Nick England's website, lots of great pics!!!). As I came out of Big Bend under the drive over bridge my rear suspension let go. Needless to say I hit the wall at a fairly fast rate of speed and fortunately didn't die (although I broke both arms, both wrists, three ribs and a vertibrae and now have an 8" titanium bar in my arm and,oh yea, my wife and my doctor won't let me back in a racecar again after 38 years of racing). You need to get comfortable with the HANS because it could very well save your life. It did mine!!! I was told later that if I had hit the wall without one I would be dead. I was driving a little car on a well used racetrack in perfect conditions and the "It wouldn't ever happen to me" happened. Regardless of how well you prepare and how well you drive stuff happens. We are driving old racecars and adding new technology i.e. tire that stick, and even after having all of my suspension magna fluxed it still happened. Get smart and be safe, it can happen even in the smallest of cars (mine was less than a liter). Any time I hear someone say "I'm waiting for so and so to happen" or "I'm waiting for something more comfortable" or "I"m waiting for something cheaper" I could just strangle them. Your safety in a race car should be your first priority!!! We do this for fun, not to take undue risk. If it means you don't get to race for a couple of months as the cost of the safety equipment you just bought took all your entry money than so be it. The next time you get the chance to race you'll be safe!!! I hope you and all else who read this post take heed. Go fast but be safe.
As an individual who used ( and I stress the term used) to race a G Mod sports racer let me tell you a bit about safety in a racecar. I was at Sebring October 23, 2004. I was racing in the vintage group in my G Mod Beach Mk4 (see Beach history on Nick England's website, lots of great pics!!!). As I came out of Big Bend under the drive over bridge my rear suspension let go. Needless to say I hit the wall at a fairly fast rate of speed and fortunately didn't die (although I broke both arms, both wrists, three ribs and a vertibrae and now have an 8" titanium bar in my arm and,oh yea, my wife and my doctor won't let me back in a racecar again after 38 years of racing). You need to get comfortable with the HANS because it could very well save your life. It did mine!!! I was told later that if I had hit the wall without one I would be dead. I was driving a little car on a well used racetrack in perfect conditions and the "It wouldn't ever happen to me" happened. Regardless of how well you prepare and how well you drive stuff happens. We are driving old racecars and adding new technology i.e. tire that stick, and even after having all of my suspension magna fluxed it still happened. Get smart and be safe, it can happen even in the smallest of cars (mine was less than a liter). Any time I hear someone say "I'm waiting for so and so to happen" or "I'm waiting for something more comfortable" or "I"m waiting for something cheaper" I could just strangle them. Your safety in a race car should be your first priority!!! We do this for fun, not to take undue risk. If it means you don't get to race for a couple of months as the cost of the safety equipment you just bought took all your entry money than so be it. The next time you get the chance to race you'll be safe!!! I hope you and all else who read this post take heed. Go fast but be safe.