hey tom, i never called you hostile, i still like you, and i really like
the "mean" looks of your spike - nosed 34, very cool- its actually one of
my favorite looking salt machines. anyways, yes, i sound like a whining
baby, and yes, the spoiler on our car sure does look like a wing, and yes,
i guess it can be considered a wing, - BUT , the fact remains that
our spoiler / wing meets every single requirement to be a spoiler per the
published 99 rules- dimensions, surfaces, vertical supports, everything, so
if i can design a wing that fully meets all scta published spoiler rules,
then why not. it legally is within the scta description of a spoiler,
period. i would guess you may agree, you should use the rules to the best
of your ability, without cheating- right, well we did. i would not have
gone through the trouble of building this thing with multi axis compound
angles and still be adjustable and fully support high downforce without
fully reading the rules. id bet there is $100 worth of argon and
electricity alone in it. i had no reason to ask for interpretation - it
simply meets the rules - in my opinion only. and yes, i agree that we
should be able to run a wing, especially if it has to fit within the
dimensional requirements of a scta spoiler, after all, take a look at the
spoiler diagram in the 99 rules, you cant build a very big wing with those
dimensions. i am with you on allowing wings, after all, if our spoiler is
deemed illegal for altered class, which i can see it most likely will be,
then other than running for time only ( which doesnt bother me- i just want
to go fast ) , our car, now having a wing per scta, would have to be
classed as a lakester or streamliner - rediculous!!!!!! and on a side
note, i can see where the lower blades would be open to interpretation by
scta, im not disputing that-
regards-
doug@black radon
|