I think everyone is getting over exercised about this class issue. We
are all trying to do the same thing, go fast with what we have, or are
building.
When I started running at the Salt we bragged of having over 70 classes.
How many do we have now, 500? Does it make a difference if a class on
the books is not run? Should we get rid of the class? I have to agree
with Dan's statement, it does seem that there is a desire to "make a
class for me" , on the other hand, I can see the point of those who
would like to see classes to cover other race cars that are available
that may not fit our classes. Personally, I have always built to the
rules and as close to the line as I edge as is reasonable.
I sat on the rules committee for a few years, it is a difficult job to
determine how far to go with changes. I remember the first time the
Vesco #444 was entered., I believe it ran time only because of its
radical departure from the configuration of the cars of the day (a very
narrow track). Safety has always been paramount in minds of the rules
makers. My advice would be to keep asking for change, but don't expect
it to happen immediately. Please don't be critical of those in charge,
they love the Sport too, many race cars as well and they are
volunteering their time to make this happen.
It seems to me that the issue here may be that everyone, even the
"Newbies" think that there should be a class that they can easily claim
a record. Records should be difficult! But, the records in most of the
current classes can be broken with some work and determination. After
all does an easy record really satisfy? The one I am working on will if
I can accomplish the feat!
Tom, Redding CA - #216 D/GCC
john backus wrote:
>What the devil is this about? Is it Gribb's Thunderbird doesn't fit a class?
>What about Oval Track Class in some form? Or Competition Coupe? I have EVERY
>respect in the world for you Dan but "it's been this way for years and should
>stay that way" may not be the best way to do things these days. Change is
>good, most of the time. Why couldn't someone run on 110 octane gas? Was there
>a reasonable explanation? Sue the SCTA? I would have shown the man the way to
>the exit!
>
>Just an ignorant opionion, John Backus
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Dan Warner
>Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2001 12:45 PM
>To: land speed
>Subject: varity of classes
>
>Those classes are precious. I can't imagine
>eliminating them or any others simply to save a single line in the records
>book.
>*******************************
>
>Dan & list,
>
>My point exactly!!
>
>There are classes with existing records with no entries - build and race
>there. No need to add to the database when no interest exist for what is
>currently available.
>
>Another example is the discussion I had at the lakebed last Sunday. The guy I
>was talking with said he was not going to conform to the "event gas" rule
>because ERC did not have the octane rating he wanted to use. When I told him
>that he could not record in that manner he insisted that he would take the
>SCTA-BNI to court. I asked him if he had spoken to Rick at ERC about his
>products, he said no he had not. The point here is should the procedure be
>changed for one person when it has worked well for several years?
>
>DW
///
/// land-speed@autox.team.net mailing list
/// To unsubscribe send a plain text message to majordomo@autox.team.net
/// with nothing in it but
///
/// unsubscribe land-speed
///
/// or go to http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
///
///
|