I agree with Jay. There are rules, we are supposed to abide by the rules,
like them or not. Period, end of discussion!
Just because I can afford to buy an ex-indy car (read any high powered
playtoy) doesn't mean the rules or courses should be relaxed so that I can
drive it as fast as it will go around a parkinglot regardless if that is
safe for me or anyone else participating at that event. That's the same
mentality that sees Ferrari and Lambo owners driving > 100 MPH on city
streets or 200 on expressways. Just because you can doesn't give you carte
blanc to do so. There are plenty of other venues where high speeds are
allowed.
Don't criticize Tom (Robert) for pointing out the Emperor has no clothes! He
perceived a problem and followed the correct procedures to bring it to
attention, the last time I looked the protest form didn't have a place to
write in a penalty request if the protest is held valid, and even if it did
I know Robert, he would NOT have asked for a remedy that favored himself.
The PC agreed that there was a valid issue and THEY deemed it appropriate to
disallow Sunday's times, NOT Robert.
What were the other protests mentioned?
Chuck
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jay Mitchell" <jemitchelltx@earthlink.net>
To: <autox@autox.team.net>; <evolution-discussions@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, February 20, 2006 8:33 AM
Subject: Re: [evolution-disc.] event speed?
> Reijo wrote:
>
> <quoting me>
> > > "2.1.A....... Speeds on straight stretches should not
> > > normally exceed the low 60's (mph) for the fastest Stock
> and
> > > Street Prepared category cars."
> >
> > Correct me if I'm wrong but I read this to be somewhat
> vague wording.
>
> Did you read what I wrote after that? I'll quote:
>
> "If an SS (or ASP, there's really not that much speed
> differential these days) car is clocked at 83 mph, it is
> clear that the intentional "wiggle room" in the above rule
> has been completely used up (and then some) and that the
> event is not legal."
>
> The phrase "intentional wiggle room" is an acknowledgement
> that the wording has been made vague on purpose. However, if
> speeds generally are to be kept to the "low 60s (mph)," I
> don't think a reasonalbe person would argue that "low 80s
> (mph)" is anywhere close to compliance.
>
> > Think there just has to be some flexibility me-thinks...
>
> What makes you think there isn't already "some flexibility"
> in the rules? If we relax them to read "low 70s," then won't
> we then see folks arguing that "low 90s" is OK, since cars
> are "so much better" now? In your opinion, at what point
> does the sport cease to be "non-speed" competition?
>
> Jay
|