A few recollections from another observer, who has no particular feelings one
way or another:
* The BFG with assymetric carcass (was that the 226?) was "introduced"
silently at the 1990 Nationals (not the 1989 Nationals as John Whitling
remembers).
* The public acknowledgement by BFG about the 226 (?) was in the April
(?) 1991 Team T/A newsletter, where the cover article was how the assymetric
construction R-1 was "successfully introduced" at Salina and Road America in
the fall of 1990. That was interesting to me, in light of the next two bullet
points.
* If I recall (and I do have the older rule books in my basement, but
I'm not home right now, go ahead and call me anal), the April 30th rule was in
effect in 1990.
* As far as the comment below about protests, Pete Larson did write a
protest at the 1990 Nationals. It was thrown out.
* Of course, the tire wars at Nationals was started by Goodyear, in the
large Corvette sized tires at the 1987 Nationals. Limited quantity for certain
drivers. At least that's what's been told to me, by yet another co-driver who
was a Goodyear supported driver for a few years in the late '80s and early
'90s.
Anyone care to share their other recollections?
Al Chan
(Had the latest R1s on his F-Stock Firebird at the 1990 Nationals - shared the
car with a BFG contract driver who insisted that I should have the "latest"
rubber)
> ----------
> From: MBD96@aol.com[SMTP:MBD96@aol.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 23, 1999 9:19 AM
> To: alliancemillsoft@worldnet.att.net
> Cc: racers@rt66.com; autox@autox.team.net
> Subject: Re: The tire thing^n and personal responsibility
>
> In a message dated 4/22/99 8:14:35 PM Central Daylight Time,
> alliancemillsoft@worldnet.att.net writes:
>
> << I think it was the '89 Nationals in Salina when BFG first introduced the
> 226
> series tires. They were clearly different tires from the ones that had been
> supplied by BFG all year ... specially made for Salina. The powers that be
> (not
> you I understand) at the time let those tires run. That was pure politics.
> Were
> you running a G stock SVO back then on Generals? >>
>
> I don't have my 1989 rule book handy, so excuse me here. However, what were
>
> the rules for stock and street prepared tires in 1989? Those rules were
> DIFFERENT FROM the rules we operate under today.
>
> If the tires weren't 'legal' by the 1989 rule book's definition, and people
> had major heartburn over it, where were the protests? There weren't any!
> So
> the people you allude to that allowed these tires to run was you, me, and
> every other member there in attendance. You call that politics? Call it
> whatever you want. It's just as much your fault as mine or anyone else's
> for
> not protesting these tires if they didn't meet the letter of the rules in
> effect at that time.
>
> As for the SVO and the Generals? Proves my earlier point. Neither were the
>
> popular choice 'du jour' back then, were they? I knew what BFG had
> available
> and (with the idea coming from John Ames) went a different route because I
> didn't like the performance of their tires on my 5.0. The market worked.
>
> Bruce (we are a member driven club, believe it or not) Dickey
>
|