holy smokes, that was well said Rich !!!!!
same could be said for running within 1-2 mph of a speed time
after time after time :):):)
talk about consistency:):):)
welcome to the list Tim
Joe :)
Richard Fox wrote:
>Tim; It accomplishes exactly the same thing that a Suzuki Fuel Injected twin
>plug '32 Plymouth accomplishes. It's fun to build and run. Could say the
>same for a '34 Ford coup. None of us are curing cancer. What's the harm?
>Rich Fox
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Tim Bryant" <timbryant44@hotmail.com>
>To: <land-speed@autox.team.net>
>Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 03:58 PM
>Subject: Re: Propster
>
>
>>My personal feelings are what are you trying to prove by using a prop? To
>>
>go
>
>>fast? Of course, what about showing that it can be done? Its not all that
>>much of an achievement if you are not doing it putting the power through
>>
>the
>
>>wheels. Of course people are arguing about innovation and all that. I
>>believe the rules are to have a class there has to be a demand for that
>>class. If he wants a record, seems like he's gonna need a few more
>>
>buddies
>
>>with Propsters. I think it would be interesting to see it run, but to me,
>>its a little bit like watching a plane fly down the runway at takeoff, not
>>too interesting, doesnt have to worry about traction, or breaking loose
>>
>and
>
>>spinning. Also I read something about top speeds of cars not increasing.
>>It may just be that the technology needed to push cars this far hasnt
>>
>really
>
>>been developed, considering how many cars actually go this fast, and need
>>
>to
>
>>worry about traction. Getting planes through the air more efficiently is
>>
>a
>
>>place where a lot of tech goes because of the $$$ that can be made there,
>>making 500 mph cars, not too much money coming from it. Eh, Interesting
>>idea, just dont see what it accomplishes.
>>Tim
|