Doug,
I was not trying to diminish the accomplishments of those who set records
with the current system. I guess it came out that way but I just feel they
were set to a different standard and that should be identified. Like Tom
said, setting a record at any venue is not a given or a piece of cake. It's
tough. It just seems that we continue to move the stake as our sport evolves
and I feel we need to inform people of how the standards have evolved.
I tried to make a second post last night but I apparently moused up
somewhere because it never came thru. I did not set any records. WE set the
records. Without Bryan Savage and a hard working dedicated crew none of it
would have happened. I got so fired up in my first post that my brain
stopped.
I respect every record set,I just get emotional about the standards being in
flux and many people who see these records are not aware of how they were
set.
Peace,
Howard
----- Original Message -----
From: <ARDUNDOUG@aol.com>
To: <land-speed@autox.team.net>
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2001 10:00 AM
Subject: SCTA Two-Way and One Way Records
> > Setting a record has always been defined as performing against a
standard.
> > The recognized standard in land speed racing has always been a two way
> > average across the same relative piece of real estate. You cannot claim
> any
> > record with a one way pass. Tail wind, down hill, etc. Why do we always
> want
> > to make it easier to set records? My records were set when you had to
make
> a
> > qualifying run over the record and then the two way pass in opposite
> > directions to get the record. I was not happy when they took the
> qualifying
> > pass out of the equation and I think all the recent records that have
been
> > set with two passes in the same direction should have an asterisk beside
> > them identifying that fact.
> > I will accept the fact that I am old fashioned and that they name
streets
> > after me. They are called "one Way"
> > I have even been called opinionated but what do those people know?
> >
> Howard,
> I was a little surprised to see your posting, considering your
> accomplishments and stature in the LSR Group. I decided to "sleep on it"
(aka
> count to 100) before replying, but it still strikes me the same way this
> morning.
> The vast majority of record setters have no direct "say-so" in how
> Riley(sp) Chemical Co. treats Bonneville, how Mother Nature prepares our
> "playground", nor how the SCTA Race Committee decides how to run the meet.
We
> just run according to the rules and enjoy whatever "peer-recognition" we
get
> out of it.
> When I was first directly involved in Speed Week we qualified one day,
> spent the night in Impound, then ran two-ways the following morning. The
> Vintage engines such as mine really had their tongues "hanging-out" by the
> time they completed the third pass.
> When the "Two-Club" was formed in the 50's the primary engines used
were
> the Flatty, GMC, Ford Model A, 303 Olds, 331 Caddy, 331 Chrysler, and the
239
> Stude V-8. Considering the existing technology of the early 50's, a 200MPH
> record in those days was about as exclusive as a 300MPH record is today.
> What I'm driving at is, if you want to label todays "two-ways, same
> direction, same real estate" records as "not quite as good as in the
> good-old-days when we had to run three times over 2 days", maybe post-SBC
> records should have the same connotation. Additionally, how about the guys
> that set LSR records in the August 1999 heat with a rough sloppy course as
> opposed to the favorable density-altitude and great salt at World Finals
1999?
> For my part, there are no "classes-of-records", only
> "records-in-classes". I have a special respect for the early 200MPH Club
> inductees such as Chrisman, Neumayer, Hill, and many others who "made-it"
> with the old-technology. Not to take anything away from any other
"Two-Club"
> member or Bonneville Record Holder, I consider them all to be in a pretty
> exclusive group.
> Whether they set their record(s) under favorable or unfavorable race
> course and atmospheric conditions, with existing "old-technology" in the
> 50's, modern technology in the 90's, or "old-technology" during
present-day
> meets, they have indeed accomplished significant goals and are all due the
> same "peer-recognition" regardless of the changes in SCTA-BNI event
> procedures.
> Ardun Doug King
///
/// land-speed@autox.team.net mailing list
///
|