In a message dated 9/24/02 1:26:01 PM Central Daylight Time, bthatch@juno.com
writes:
> While I agree that it was important for SM to walk
> through these steps, for SM2 to have to go through the same rigorous
> process seems excessive. Here's why. SM2 is an extension of the SM
> concept. SM is, in effect, a whole new category of Solo II cars. There
> were lots of concerns about such a wide-open class gaining national
> status too soon, given the high-tech-dollar projections for long-term
> success in the class. SM has already proven the viability of the
> category. Now that we have seen the interest at Topeka (and I do see the
> interest, and participation, here at home, too) why prolong the process
> just because that is the way it has always been done.
In other words, why don't we make all the rules superfluous and subject to
change anytime somebody wants them to suit their own way. The fact that the
entire podium was usurped by non-SM2 vehicles, regardless of what anyone's
future intentions are, or the fact that the nearest actual SM2 vehicle was
2.6+ sec. total out of first seems seems not to have registered into your
thinking process.
IMO you play "out in left field" better than you "pitch", so to speak. SM2
needs to step up to the plate and spend it's time at bat just like every
other new class. In the meantime, lets quit all this adolescent yammering.
When the class has properly matured, then it can stand up and be counted, but
not before.
Mark
- standards, we don't need no stinking standards ... NOT!
/// unsubscribe/change address requests to majordomo@autox.team.net or try
/// http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo
/// Partial archives at http://www.team.net/archive
|