What the heck does how many people want to run them have
anything to do with anything?? You have completely lost me
with the business as usual nonsense.... In many respects it
is a matter of credibility, if you are unfair and or
illogical on one matter then how do you magically become
credible on something else. It is unfair period, absolutely
makes no sense and just alienates new comers.. I hear all
sorts of stuff about creating interest in LSR well it will
never happen by having a bunch of provincial rules 'cause
that's the way it has always been. It has nothing to do with
that anyway other wise we would have changed a whole bunch
of other rules in the meantime... To me one of the biggest
challenges of this sport has been ruled out of existence.
The same day turn around with an hour to prep the car...
That was tradition at it's finest and is now gone. I am sure
that it has a lot to do with the amount of salt to work
with, but I personally hope it all comes back as the
condition of the salt improves!!!!! If you are for or
against something that is great and your opinion but please
don't start with 'How many people care'. I had thought that
if 3 people wanted a new class that it was a viable thing to
discuss . I can not believe that under 3 people think this
is unfair and therefore not a worthy thing to discuss in all
the merits and shortcomings as opposed to how many cars will
come..
the first four I can think of are Me, Chuck Rothfus, Bev
Stanly and Jim Burkdol anyone else out in e-mail land care
to add their name???
Dahlgren
Jim Dincau wrote:
>
> I don't know Dave, the Bonneville record book shows 21 F class records set
> in 1990 or later and 10 older than 1990. That shows some interest. How many
> people out there want to run rotary's?
> Jim in Palmdale
>
> -- Original Message -----
> From: Dave Dahlgren <ddahlgren@snet.net>
> To: Parks, David <David.Parks@lfr.com>
> Cc: <land-speed@autox.team.net>
> Sent: Friday, December 15, 2000 9:24 AM
> Subject: Re: rules
>
> > Well in my humble opinion I think it is entirely fair to
> > compare engines on the basis of how many cubic inches of
> > volume they process over a given number or crankshaft
> > rotations.. It's all physics and there really isn't any bs
> > at all in my mind. If you run against other rotaries then
> > comes the argument as to what classes they are allowed in...
> > i think that the rules committee just plain does not want to
> > deal with it or they just don't know how these things work
> > in the first place period. is everyone that terrified in an
> > 'F' class car that this thing will blow the doors off what
> > they are doing??? In my experience going to Bonneville there
> > did not seem to be all that much interest in the entire
> > engine size to be honest..Most of the records are 10 to 15
> > years old... Other than a couple of roadster classes and i
> > think Rick Byrnes car...
> > Dave Dahlgren
> >
> > "Parks, David" wrote:
> > >
> > > Dave,
> > >
> > > I was at the rules committee meetings so I am familiar with the
> sentiments
> > > of both sides.
> > > Frankly, I think that comparing different types of engines with ANY
> factor
> > > is a bunch of b.s..
> > > It can only be arbitrary at best, and one side or the other is always
> > > unhappy.
> > > I personally think that the best solution is to have separate classes
> for
> > > the two sizes
> > > of rotary engines, at least in some of the catagories. They already have
> the
> > > "omega"
> > > engine classification for "non-otto cycle" engines, so I don't think it
> > > would be much
> > > of a stretch to add R1 and R2 classes for the rotaries. This approach
> might
> > > make it easier
> > > to avoid the 'what number would be good?' arguments. They may not want
> to
> > > add the rotary
> > > engines in all catagories, but that is another discussion. I think it
> might
> > > help if you
> > > got a bunch of rotary lovers to request the separate engine classes
> instead
> > > of trying to
> > > change the factor. But then again, what do I know, I run a V8. Good
> luck!
> > >
> > > David
|