>From rem9@cornell.edu Sat Oct 31 22:53:45 1998
Russ,
Now that we've all jumped down your throat on this ... I think the MG
perspective may be just a shade different for a couple reasons.
Historically, MGVR started out in 1981 as a group for T-series ONLY. We
added MGA's in about 1988, and MGB's etc in the early 1990's. There are
still some T-series guys who remain pretty skeptical of the later
models. You wouldn't really have an analogous situation with Triumphs,
unless you had started out with a about fifty Triumph 1800 Roadsters who
didn't want to allow anything without a dickey!
Also, to date the vintage MG community hasn't had close ties with
current or recent SCCA racers. We do have one or two on our mailing
list, but the relationship is not close. The majority of our members do
not even know who Kent Prather is, for instance (nor do they much care).
Pity, in a way.
Sounds like the Triumph group has somewhat closer ties between vintage
types & SCCA types -- which would naturally lead to more acceptance of
flares, air dams, etc.
I'm not saying my position has changed -- I still don't want cars
prepared to modern standards in the MG/TR Challenge race -- but I think
I can understand why we differ slightly in our perspective.
Regards,
Mark
>Bill et al,
>The thoughts on allowing some cars in that might otherwise not qualify,
>from my end, was based on a desire to allow the drivers, in my case of
>mention, specifically JK Jackson and Glen Effinger in to play with us.
I am
>sure there are others on both sides of the "feud". Certainly it was not
my
>intent to have the full blown 1998 national level cars but rather to
afford
>the opportunity of some folks closely associated with the vintage
efforts
>to participate. JK has been into this for years and Glen has helped
many of
>us through the years.
>
>The emphasis is more on participation rather than to create hazards by
>putting cars in the field capable of capture speeds dangerously in
excess.
>I do understand your concerns, this is after all a vintage event and I
>would not desire SVRA to go the course of another sanction body and
allow
>anything with a checkbook. I was thinking maybe a fender flare might
not be
>looked upon so strongly. Safety would of course be the top priority and
I
>in no way propose we field any cars that don't meet that.
>Russ
>
>
>
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
|