Interesting history lesson; and; I hope to see them back in as a legal
class even if they have to have a rear engine class. Wonder if Harry
thought of building a fiberglass rear that doesn't look like a model T and
run lakester?
Richk
> Yes there is however, historically, when the lakester class was first run
> (it was called "Streamliner" then) it was for roadsters that had been
> narrowed or otherwise modified so much that they could no longer be called
> roadsters. Later when fully enclosed bodies came along the streamliner
> class
> and open wheeled Lakester classes came into being. Much later (in the '80s
> as I remember) Don Ferguson and son of the same name came out to El Mirage
> with their GMC powered Modified Roadster with a wing on it. Thing went
> 200.
> Rules guys said "No wings in Modified Roadster" (I know, now lots of
> modifieds have wings) So Don said " If it's not a roadster it must be a
> lakester" At the time there was no rule against it. Of course the lakester
> guys let up a howl because they didn't want faster roadsters taking their
> records. Never mind that lakesters are supposed to be faster.
> So it came to pass that Don's record stood as a Lakester, but in the
> future
> lakesters had to be specially construction. No modified automotive bodies.
> Everybody was happy.
> Now I ask you, do you think Harry's body really is a model T? Neither do
> I.
> It's a specialty constructed body for landspeed racing. It happens to have
> lines resembling a model T but it's not got one Ford part on it. So why
> isn't it a legal lakester? Rich Fox
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <richk@mercurylink.net>
> To: "Richard Fox" <v4gr@rcn.com>
> Cc: "Land Speed Digest" <land-speed@autox.team.net>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2004 08:00 AM
> Subject: Re: Bonneville Rear Engine Roadsters
>
>
>> Isn't there something in the rules about not using automotive bodies for
>> lakesters? I don't have a rule book handy.
>>
>> RichK
|