Dave We obviously agree on the electronic's portion of this.... But I
honestly see the logic of this Muscle car Class.... and Obviously I would be
a Fool to argue with the Stated 81 year policy.... ( yeah it's an 80
Camaro )
Now for the competition portion of the Statement.... Like you it's often
Hard to find someone to run in our Class.... So I go look for folks to
compete with outside our class.... I try and Pick cars that are in Higher
classes and beat up on them.... It make the Racing fun..... but like in High
school the one thing I have learned is that " the bigger they are.... the
Harder they Hit "
Gots to go finish the Nitrous Box.... K
----- Original Message -----
From: dahlgren <dahlgren@uconect.net>
To: John Beckett <landspeedracer@email.msn.com>
Cc: Land Speed List <land-speed@autox.team.net>; Dan Warner
<dwarner@electrorent.com>; Mike Manghelli <mmanghel@hughes.net>; Parks,
David <David.Parks@lfr.com>
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2000 4:36 AM
Subject: Re: New Category "Muscle Cars"
> Man you just have to love the special construction categories don't
> you.. none of this nonsense... For all these car classes you really
> gotta love them. This is all starting to sound so legal and tough to
> police that it is beyond all belief. I have to ask though why?? The real
> key to the electronics is the ability to make a lot of power through the
> whole rpm range. If you are only concerned with a couple thousand rpm
> that is maxed out then it is not nearly as much an issue. In many cases
> a middle of the road electronics car will make less power than a car
> with a tunnel ram and carb...Why is everyone so afraid of them ??? Why
> don't just run one if you think they are better. At some point this is
> going to get to having a class for every conceivable car.. 34 ford
> blown,unblown,gas , fuel,electronic,chopped,full body..etc then the same
> for 35 ford....My humble opinion tells me that everyone wants a record
> and they want one with the car they own right now and the easiest way to
> get one is have a class made that fits their car perfectly and no one
> else has a car that will run in that class...Maybe it would be easier to
> have a class that is just 'Dave's car' and no other car/driver can run
> in that class because they don't have "dave's car" Geez let's go racing,
> what ever happened to competition?? I would be very curious to get the
> info that would tell me how many cars run each class at a given meet and
> annually. That might be a better indication as to how many new classes
> are needed. Seems to me that currently most classes only have one or two
> cars in them now. they are almost a personal car class at this point.
> Dahlgren
>
> John Beckett wrote:
> >
> > List
> >
> > Have been out of town pretty much for a week now, between Maxton and
my
> > son's golf tourney, had about 155 e-mails on the 'puter'. So as I finish
> > reading almost all of them looks like Dan has struck a cord that most
all of
> > us have comments or some feelings on. Guess its time to interject my
> > thoughts as well.
> >
> > 1, The thought of more classes at 'Maxton' is enough to make me run
around
> > the yard, screaming wildly and pulling my hair out (and it's already
getting
> > to thin now). We already have double the 'scooter' classes back east. Oh
God
> > that's 150 more classes.
> >
> > 2, OK I'll get over #1 in a minute. It's an administrative thing. Moving
on,
> > lets define the main (primary) reason for this category. Is it an
> > AERODYNAMIC issue or is it an ELECTRONICS issue????
> >
> > 3, If there is a time period for this category '49 to ???? Cut it off at
25
> > or 30 years, not 1981. If that winds up at 1973 or 1978 so be it (Keith,
I
> > would guess, can claim his '80 Camero is a '73). A '78 Mustang is still
a
> > lot more aerodynamic than a '68 Mustang. So even with a 25 or 30 year
cut
> > off I don't see anyone running to the garage to take the '57 Chevy out
of
> > mothballs to run on the "salt". Basically your going to have a
proliferation
> > of '70's cars with an occasional '53 Stude thrown in. OK, so weren't
true
> > "Muscle Cars" built in the 60's and early 70's anyway? The more I think
> > about this proposal the more I think a 25 year cut off is the
appropriate
> > way to go.
> >
> > 4, As for "electronics". Simple, keep it limited to the technology of
the
> > time. Carburetors, mechanical fuel injection, electronic CD ignition
> > systems. But don't forget, by the late 70's there were already some
forms of
> > 'puters' in cars, almost everything was electronic ignition, and MSD had
> > crank triggers on the market. So if your going to allow cars to '81 your
> > already on you way into the "electronics" age. To my way of thinking, if
> > this is an issue maybe we should definitely make the cut at 1973 and
> > eliminate all electronics from the class period.
> >
> > Obviously there are going to be differing view points on this issue,
but
> > I hope these that I have just offered will be taken as constructive.
> >
> > John (its headed to 87 in WNC today) Beckett
>
|