Sorry Dan Warner...this was for Dave Haller......
Dave Dahlgren
dahlgren wrote:
>
> Dan are you saying if something is unfair it is a good thing that it
> reamins unfair.. or is even better to build on the mistakes of others??
> you are confusing me here..Did you read any of the posts regarding the
> rotary stuff?? To add even more fuel to fire why excactly do i have to
> give a rat's ass what Baskeville thinks or expects...Does he actually
> care what i think...probably not so I guess he and i are even on
> that...Look how about if i promise not to put one in a roadster LOL...
> Dan if you didn't read all the posts about it you ought to because
> someday there just might be a rule you want amened or a new class then
> it will be Your Turn..
> Dave Dahlgren
>
> Dave Haller wrote:
> >
> > My Two Cents,
> > Dan and Dave, take a look at Gary Baskervilles(spelling) article in the
> > latest hot rod edition. He starts out writing how he has been away from
> > Bonneville for awhile but knows some things don't change. The steadfast
> > stance of SCTA is one of those refreshing things according to the article,
> > that he was counting on, I have to agree,
> > Dave Haller #93
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "dahlgren" <dahlgren@uconect.net>
> > To: "Dan Warner" <dwarner@electrorent.com>; <Land-speed@autox.team.net>
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2000 5:02 AM
> > Subject: Re: Rotary factor
> >
> > > Dan and rules committee..............
> > > So the logic is if someone set a record with an unfair rule that all
> > > that follow must be subjected to the same degree of unfair LOL what a
> > > crock if i ever heard one.. Sort of like the 'the floggings will
> > > continue until morale improves'.. Dan in all honesty I am really
> > > disappointed in the scta on this one. I can not believe that this was
> > > turned down. It tells me a couple of things..Mostly that SCTA does not
> > > really care about conforming in any way to the standards set by the
> > > motor sport community (aka the rest of the world), and that they do not
> > > see fit to change an unfair rule as technology moves forward. The piston
> > > engines are a lot better than they were when the rotaries first came out
> > > and the rotary is still the same place. Geez it does not even describe
> > > the physics involved in the combustion process... makes me want to ask
> > > if there are any sacred 'F' class records that have to stay intact...
> > > Are there any engineers on the rules committee?? If so any mechanical
> > > ones??? Did anyone think it had merit or was this universally
> > > dismissed???
> > > A pretty disappointed guy here in CT....
> > > Dahlgren
> > > Dan Warner wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Dave,
> > > >
> > > > The feeling among the rules guys was that the existing records were set
> > with
> > > > the current factor. So anyone planning on running a rotary would be
> > racing
> > > > these records.
> > > >
> > > > Dan
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: dahlgren <dahlgren@uconect.net>
> > > > To: Dan Warner <dwarner@electrorent.com>
> > > > Cc: <land-speed@autox.team.net>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2000 3:47 AM
> > > > Subject: Rotary factor
> > > >
> > > > > Dan I have heard that the request to change the factor for rotary
> > > > > engines was turned down.. Why might I ask ? what was the reasoning on
> > it
> > > > > all?? Surely it was documented enough... If it was due to a lack of
> > cars
> > > > > that is sort of a self fulfilling sort of thing.. bad factor no
> > > > > cars...How is this appealed??
> > > > > Dave Dahlgren
> > > > >
> > >
|