autox
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Proposal for SP cars to compete in P ???

To: <dg50@daimlerchrysler.com>, <autox@autox.team.net>
Subject: RE: Proposal for SP cars to compete in P ???
From: "Richard Atkins" <richarda@npclabels.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 10:41:58 -0500
How about changing the title on this, don't see anything any more about SP
or P

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-autox@autox.team.net [mailto:owner-autox@autox.team.net]On
Behalf Of dg50@daimlerchrysler.com
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2001 9:09 AM
To: autox@autox.team.net
Subject: RE: Proposal for SP cars to compete in P ???


"Linnhoff, Eric" <elinnhoff@smmc.saint-lukes.org> wrote:

> Please, enlighten us with your Northern wisdom.  Why, in your opinion, is
> the "non-R-compound tires" issue one that causes the class to dangle
> precariously over a hot cauldron?

> I contend that it's the main thing holding the class together.

That's the problem right there.

> Sure, you can subscribe to Roger's doom & gloom theory that the sky is
going
> to fall and we'll be deluged with 80 rated tires stamped as 140's, but I
say
> let's wait and see.

What you're missing is that Roger's Doom & Gloom (TM) theory about "tire
creep" isn't just the ravings of an old man who doesn't like change - it's
based on historical fact. It has already happened before. That elevates it
from a "theory" to a "prediction".

He's dead right. This IS going to happen, eventually, for the same reasons
as it happened before. And when it DOES happen, the SCCA is going to be
left facing the same decisions is was when it was decided that R tires
would be legal for Stock class. Given that nothing has changed between then
and now as far as tire manufacturer capability, the end result is either
one of two choices - a spec tire, or allow R compounds.

Once that line has been crossed, what then holds together STS? By your own
admission, the tires are the bonding agent. Would you stay in STS if it
turns into STR?

> Who knows what the future holds for us?  But to say that the STS class is
on
> thin ice, puh-lease.  Where's your proof?  It darn sure isn't in _our_
> attendance numbers, Mr. Supplemental Class.

Don't you read FastTrack Eric? We're fully National now, thank you very
much, and SM2 is on the books as a supp class for 2002.

And if you want to play the attendance figures game, you guys got beaten by
the "supplimental class" SM (43+6 = 49) vs STS (39+6 = 45)

But yes, you guys are on thin ice. There's nothing wrong with y'all making
hay while the sun shines and having fun while it lasts, but your foundation
is built on sand.

DG




****************************************************************************

The information contained in this transmission, which may be
confidential and proprietary, is only for the intended recipients.
Unauthorized use is strictly prohibited. If you receive this
transmission in error, please notify me immediately by telephone
or electronic mail and confirm that you deleted this transmission
and the reply from your electronic mail system.
****************************************************************************

///          autox@autox.team.net mailing list
///
///  To unsubscribe send a plain text message to majordomo@autox.team.net
///  with nothing in it but
///
///     unsubscribe autox
///
///  or try http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
///

///          autox@autox.team.net mailing list
///
///  To unsubscribe send a plain text message to majordomo@autox.team.net
///  with nothing in it but
///
///     unsubscribe autox
///
///  or try http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
///


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>