I'm curious how this rule came into being? Is there an advantage to running a mk8/9 over a 6 speed chain drive motorcycle?
900# belt/chain drive vs. 1000# hewland?
| Author | Comment | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
 Unregistered(d) |
900# belt/chain drive vs. 1000# hewland? |
Lead | ||
|
Posts: 0 06/27/01 11:03:13 |
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
Hasty Horn |
Re: 900# belt/chain drive vs. 1000# hewland? | #1 | ||
|
Registered User
Posts: 1199 06/27/01 15:34:27 |
My guess is that the weight advantage that the motorcycle (1000cc limit) engined cars were given was based more on the potential advantage of the (1300cc limit) automotive engine displacement.
That was before the days of 160 HP (crankshaft) production motorcycle motors and during the days when automotive two valve motors were more readily available. Someone with more history is welcome to correct me. Hasty Horn |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Unregistered(d) |
chain vs gearbox | #2 | ||
|
Posts: 0 06/27/01 20:38:09 |
This goes along with the weight break. It dates back to the era when the motorcycle engine technology was in its infancy. It was done to try and equalize the competition .The motorcycle based cars were usually 2 stroke Originally the minimum weight for all was #1000
CVheers, Marc Hoover |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Bill Lomenick |
900# belt/chain drive vs. 1000# hewland? | #3 | ||
|
Registered User
Posts: 493 06/28/01 12:32:42 |
The way I remember it, there was no minimum weight for DSR's, but they had to have two seats. Then old formula cars were allowed to add body work and run as single seater but had a minimum weight of #1000.
Then new single seaters were allowed to be built at the #1000 limit using an automotive engine like the old formula cars had. Most automotive based cars weighted more than this, so going to a single seat was not a penalty. A lot of the chain drive cars were way less #1000, so going to a single seat would be a big penalty, but not adding some weight wouldn't be fair to the two seaters. I think #900 for single seater was based on a comparison to the two seat chain drive, and not to the automotive based cars. The two seaters still had no minimum. Then Paul Decker built his MK1/2 which was the size of a single seater, but Paul and Jerry Smith could get in, so it had no minimum weight. There were enough people upset at this that the rules were changed so that all cars had to meet the minimum for their type of drive system. [Reformatted for readabliity. Thanks for your view of the weight history. Tom] |
|||
|
|
||||
|
ted arken |
Re: 900# belt/chain drive vs. 1000# hewland? | #4 | ||
|
Registered User
Posts: 2739 06/28/01 18:49:08 |
To add to Bills' description of the Decker Mk1/2:
Whenever Paul and Jerry (RIP) heard that a protest of the legality of the car was in the works, they would both sit in the car and have a smoke waiting for the stewards to arrive. I believe that some of the protests were from Chuck Billington. He would always be so disappointed to arrive in their pits to find the two of them sitting in the car having a good old time. The stewards didn't know what to do! The Mk1/2 really is small. I sat in it once. I'm 6 ft tall, and could barely fit in the car. I don't think I could drive it in the pits. Paul sure could. Bob Urso has the car now. It is heavily ballasted. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Lee Stohr |
History | #5 | ||
|
Registered User
Posts: 968 06/28/01 23:47:21 |
I would like to know the history of DSR rules and changes as well. It could help give continuity to future rules proposals.
Was it like this? 1) Initially, No minimum weight, 2 seats, 1000cc. 2) Add single seaters, 1000lb, 1300cc. 3)Add 900lb minimum for chain drive, new single seat designs allowed. How many major re-writes have there been to DSR rules? |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Tom Clayton |
Re: History | #6 | ||
|
Registered User
Posts: 2247 06/29/01 11:26:02 |
I've wanted to get this history to post on the DSR web site.
If someone has the time, he/she could contact the SCCA National office and talk to the historian. The office should have copies of all the previous rule books which would chronicle the documented rule history. Any volunteers? |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Unregistered(d) |
History | #7 | ||
|
Posts: 0 06/29/01 13:49:31 |
Tom, Get Fox to write up the history.
Eric |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Travis Duder |
DSR Rules-Competitors change history! | #8 | ||
|
Posts: 258 06/30/01 20:55:47 |
It just is amazing how history is changed on this forum.
Go ask Fox and Al Beasely SR. (I believe Al Sr. sat in a meeting waayyyy back when..1980 +/-??.) where the corrunt rules were made. ...and no Hasty, the 100 lbs was no due to some motorcycle thing, nor automotive displacement (then set at 1200cc) but due to the fear of the "superior advantage of the incoming FF single seater conversions". An absolute stupid differential that today is not required and no longer appropriate since anything can be single seater. (How about letting me be 900 too!) If you don't know, then let's not pretend to know. Let's get the facts from someone who was involved. (Hey, where's Dick C with some of the background info? ...as he said, he was doing this when I was in "nappies" so you must have somne real and dated info??) PS: and if there were typo's above, I realy don't give a #%$()* Derek... |
|||
|
|
||||
|
1RKENNY |
Re: DSR Rules-Competitors change history! | #9 | ||
|
Registered User
Posts: 332 07/01/01 21:59:00 |
There is a gentelman named Pete that is the archives caretaker for the SCCA. Phone # 1-317-403-6007.He said that if the information wanted was written down and sent with $15.00 to P.O.box 549 Brownsburg,Ind.46112 he would gladly go thur the archives and send the info. The 15.00 dollars is a research fee.Ron
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
1RKENNY |
Re:Heavy wieght | #10 | ||
|
Registered User
Posts: 332 08/13/01 08:26:15 |
I was just wondering if their were any advantages to having additional weight above the minimums.It seem a lot of heavy cars do well.Is it the designs or the drivers or is it just the over-all package that allows the cars to do well? Ron
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
rickb99 |
Way back in history | #11 | ||
|
Registered User
Posts: 503 08/27/01 04:00:07 |
I'm venturing into DSR with my son after many years out of the SCCA. But I can give you some slight insight into "times gone by". My first (and only) DSR was a tube frame chassis (built by Miller) with an 850cc Fiat engine in the front end rotating backwards for rear wheel drive. Suspension and steering were off of a Triumph or MG can't recall. Had a thin sheet metal body, something of a .010 aluminum firewall, floor and back plate, me and a 4 gallon gas tank. This was in about 1971. Other then the 850cc deal... it was run what you brung.
There were literally guys on the track in overpowered go-karts with 750cc cycle engines and a body. So low to the ground that you worried about not seeing them and running right over the things. The "hot car" that was newer at the time was the Quaser... also running MC engines but a far more conventional DSR. I would think the Tholen's could give you "hear say' (not written) history back to that era. Point is. To the best of my recall... there was no weight limit. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
ted arken |
Re: Way back in history | #12 | ||
|
Registered User
Posts: 2739 08/27/01 11:26:58 |
Rick
Instead of "weight limit", don't you mean "weight minimum"? |
|||
|
|
||||
|
rickb99 |
Gosh | #13 | ||
|
Registered User
Posts: 503 08/27/01 12:27:29 |
Yes, that's what I meant.
|
|||
|
|
||||
Add Reply
- 2008 Races
- IMSA Lites
- General Discussion
- Vintage: H Modified
- Getting Started
- Driving Techniques
- Aerodynamics
- Car Building
- Engine, Carburation, EFI, Oiling
- Rules Discussion
- Suspension, Tires, Wheels
- Other Technical Discussion
- For Sale: Cars
- For Sale: Engines & engine parts
- For Sale: Misc. Parts, Trailers, . . .
- Wanted: Cars & Parts
- Links, HOW TOs?, Reference info.
- Sold Items, (kept for reference)
- 2007 Races
- 2006 Races
- 2005 Races
- 2000 - 2004 Race Results (read only)
- Weight Debate
