Joe linked to this Brady Campaign to Stop Car Violence Car Ban post at Hendawg’s Blog yesterday.
The Race Car Ban of 2006 bans all compact cars with two or more of the following racing features:
Four valves per cylinder
Aerodynamic spoiler or wing that protrudes conspicuously above the trunk lid or rear deck
Air dam
Hood scoop
Chrome exhaust tip
Levitation lights
AfterburnerThe Race Car Ban would also ban the following race cars by name:
Honda Civic (all models)
Subaru Impreza WRX
Mitsubushi Lancer (all models)
Honda S2000
Volvo S40
Mazda 3 and Protoge
Toyota Corolla
Scion (all models)
Saturn Ion
Bentley Speed 8
NHRA Top Fuel dragster
Caterpillar D9
Boeing 737
Airbus A380
Possibly because I’m an idiot, the only way I can see to comment requires me to register with three very crappy “comments” services that I do not belong to, hence this post.
My question for Hendo of the BATRC (Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Race Cars) is this:
My non-listed 1984 Toyota Supra has both a factory front air dam and a conspicuously protruding dual wing on the rear hatch. The dam is integral to the front bumper and its removal would cause a significant safety issue with both the DOT and the NHTSC. Removal of the upper wing would leave a 1/2 inch diameter hole in the rear hatch glass from a support post that keeps the upper wing from collapsing at high velocity. What are my options to seal this opening without running afoul of these new regulations.
Please supply two suggestions, since, as was the case with the old Bureau when it oversaw firearms, once I fulfill my obligations using the one which is completely reasonable, your office will then change their mind and arrest me, and I would just like to do the unreasonable one first to save you all the trouble of having to do so.
Thanks you for your attention.
…………………
Had this been a real question to a real government agency, they reply would have been as follows:
Dear Sir,
We are not automobile technicians and your question makes absolutely no sense to us. Our experts are likewise unable to discern a mutually beneficial way to resolve this situation.
Our only option is to order the seizure and destruction of said dangerous vehicle, with no compensation to you.
You may turn possession of the automobile over to your local police department at your earliest convenient time.
Your receipt of this letter is evidence of your refusal to comply.
Have a nice day
Sorry, I have to agree with the BATRC. A spoiler or wing on ANY car is useless below 130 mph, as are the ground effects plastic. Below that, an aerodynamic shape of the overall car body is all you can get out of THAT branch of engineering.
Whoever made up this list left off coffee-can mufflers. They would be on the TOP of my list.
I’m from the old school, with me it’s cubes, not revs.
“A spoiler or wing on ANY car is useless below 130 mph”
While that statement might be accurate for some ground based high speed objects, when you combine the need to be able to negotiate driveways and speed bumps with a high velocity auto, getting air under the car is a very real aerodynamic problem that starts a great deal earlier.
Combine that with the auto being very light and you have the of need a great deal of downforce much sooner than the middle three digit range.
Hence, the upper wing which was positioned directly over the rear axle, providing downforce there, but also compressing air and directing it towards the long and wide lower plane at the very end of the car.
No coffee can muffler for this one. Though the exhaust note was one to move the hair of those 30ft away upon start up.
As for cubes vs. revs, let us put the 6.4L Navistar up against the 7.3 Cornbinder.
Efficiency (aka: technology) will win every time.