land-speed
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: 1 hour turnaround time

To: land-speed@autox.team.net
Subject: RE: 1 hour turnaround time
From: "Russel Mack" <rtmack@concentric.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 08:08:53 -0500
Malcolm:
once again I have to put on the "egalitarian" mantle:  to "create a working
team of the right size to do all that is on your check list" (as you say)
suggests that the rider/ driver must have EITHER...

--a big flock of very capable friends (who have nothing better to do)
--a vehicle that-- despite being ingeniously simple to service and inspect--
still has the technological prowess to best the vehicle that set the
previous record (yeah, right), OR...
--a big, fat crew PAYROLL

Those who are not as popular as Don Vesco or Al Teague-- or as well-financed
as Richard Noble-- are expected to play Russian Roulette with the 1-hour
turnaround. To me, that feels elitist.  But maybe that's just me.

W/resp. to wind-- I suggest that we could record wind direction and velocity
for each run (we already have the electronic weather stations), and solve
the course centerline vector windspeed equivalent; add or subtract that from
the actual timed speed on each run-- even before the timeslip is issued.  It
wouldn't take much more effort to do that as an (integral, w/time) average
for the time the vehicle is in the traps.  That procedure would
automatically correct for any wind advantage (or disadvantage).  And-- with
respect to the idea of canceling wind advantage effects-- it would compare
with the one-hour turnarounds that have been done traditionally.

To limit the allowed "rebuild", all that is needed is a simple set of rules;
the vehicles will stay in Impound, and Dan (and his crew) are not going to
allow any hanky-panky. (You'd have better luck trying to "get a break" from
the Fedayeen Saddam.  LoL!)
Russ, #1226B

///  unsubscribe/change address requests to majordomo@autox.team.net  or try
///  http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo
///  Archives at http://www.team.net/archive/land-speed
///  what is needed.  It isn't that difficult, folks.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>