----- Original Message -----
From: Dan Warner <dwarner@electrorent.com>
To: <ARDUNDOUG@aol.com>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2000 4:06 AM
Subject: Re: New Category
> Doug,
>
> Thank you for your input. While your observation has valid points I see
the
> opposite side. The current Modified Category has a year break of 51 years,
> this increases annually. While someone may have picked a '53 Stude to
begin
> their LSR career in 1970 it is now obvious that the vehicle is at a
> disadvantage. Why not open an area for this person to run his car? He may
> have a couple of sons that want to join us. As their interests and 'need
for
> speed' develop over a period of time they(the sons) will surely build a
> car/bike to meet the demands of increased speed and challenges. I believe
> that by adding under 50 classes we may be increasing the involvement in
our
> beloved sport by younger generations which we all admit we need to
attract.
>
> Dan Warner
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <ARDUNDOUG@aol.com>
> To: <dwarner@electrorent.com>
> Sent: Friday, September 08, 2000 10:59 AM
> Subject: Re: New Category
>
>
> > Dan,
> > Despite the fact that my records in XXF have partially been the
result
> of
> > splitting the XX class into XXO and XXF several years ago I do not favor
> the
> > additional classes as proposed.
> > There will always be certain era cars that have an aerodynamic
> advantage
> > or disadvantage. It we extend the advantage/disadvantage thing to the
> > ridiculous we would have a separate class for every style year for every
> car
> > manufactured during the past 40 years. There are some cars over the
years
> > that were better aerodynamicaly(sp) suited to LSR than others, the 53
> Stude
> > and some of the later GM Firebirds and Camaros to be specific.
> > Since most of the production bodied cars running LSR are actually
> > "purpose-built", as opposed to "daily-drivers" that racers must use for
> both
> > purposes due to storage space or financial considerations as were faced
by
> > many in the early SCTA days, it is assumed that the builder/racer had
some
> > choices as to the basic year/model to start with. If that assumption is
> > accurate and the basic startup costs are somewhat the same across the
> board
> > why not start out with something that isn't aerodynamicaly(sp)
challenged
> in
> > the first place rather than taking a brick and expecting SCTA to create
a
> > special class for bricks? I realize that the Vintage classes somewhat
defy
> > the previous statement but they are a category devoted to "yesteryear"
> where
> > bricks are the norm.
> > I hesitate putting this up to the group for obvious reasons but feel
> that
> > I have a valid point. Your thoughts?......................Doug King
> >
> >
>
|