Tom,
I have yet to hear the words "rear engine modified roadster" on the list.
Wes
on 10/3/03 3:06 PM, Thomas E. Bryant at saltracer@awwwsome.com wrote:
> List,
>
> It would seem to me that "Unlimited Innovation" has to fall within the
> confines of safety rules. Being open minded is great, but we shouldn't
> be so open minded that our brains fall out. I have been sitting by and
> wondering what all this fuss about "rws" is about. I can't see why
> anyone would want to do this when it seems evident that those who have
> tried it want no part of it.
>
> It is good to see that finally...it is understood that...at both the
> lakes and at Bonneville, we run at the pleasure of the SCTA/BNI & USFRA
> Organizations. They are the ones that work their butts off to make it
> happen and the ones ultimately responsible for the safety of the meets.
> All this discussion is amusing, but until the rules change, it is just
> that....discussion.
>
> Tom, Redding CA - #216 D/CC
>
> Dave Dahlgren wrote:
>> Don't let that phrase of 'unlimited innovation' fool you too much The
>> innovation
>> is very closely regulated and controlled in all ways. if it were unlimited i
>> could build a RWS car with traction control and drive by wire but i suspect
>> it
>> could not get in for time only so save your breath. What it is in reality is
>> the
>> amount of innovation that can and will be tolerated by the car clubs in So
>> Cal
>> area.... Lets all say points championship one more time for the lakes meets
>> and
>> lets have the chorus really belt it out so we are all in agreement on this
>> fact..
>>
>> Dave Dahlgren
>>
>> john robinson wrote:
>>
>>> partly this discussion is just an exercise in bench racing, partly its'
>>> because the powers that be have restricted the Streamliner class lately,
>>> re: no RWS, no Traction control, partly because a few of us are
>>> inquisitive...and partly because somebody did try to use it, and maybe
>>> somebody else still wants to try...the Streamliner class rules begins by
>>> stating it is for unlimited innovation, this is innovation, maybe not
>>> what >you< would want to try, but it still is innovative.....
|