Somewhat nebulous guidelines could not be better stated. Well done.
Richard Taylor
Atlanta
At 06:58 AM 11/1/98 PST, Mark Palmer wrote:
>
>
>
>>From rem9@cornell.edu Sat Oct 31 22:53:45 1998
>Russ,
>
>Now that we've all jumped down your throat on this ... I think the MG
>perspective may be just a shade different for a couple reasons.
>Historically, MGVR started out in 1981 as a group for T-series ONLY. We
>added MGA's in about 1988, and MGB's etc in the early 1990's. There are
>still some T-series guys who remain pretty skeptical of the later
>models. You wouldn't really have an analogous situation with Triumphs,
>unless you had started out with a about fifty Triumph 1800 Roadsters who
>didn't want to allow anything without a dickey!
>
>Also, to date the vintage MG community hasn't had close ties with
>current or recent SCCA racers. We do have one or two on our mailing
>list, but the relationship is not close. The majority of our members do
>not even know who Kent Prather is, for instance (nor do they much care).
>Pity, in a way.
>
>Sounds like the Triumph group has somewhat closer ties between vintage
>types & SCCA types -- which would naturally lead to more acceptance of
>flares, air dams, etc.
>
>I'm not saying my position has changed -- I still don't want cars
>prepared to modern standards in the MG/TR Challenge race -- but I think
>I can understand why we differ slightly in our perspective.
>
>Regards,
>Mark
>>Bill et al,
>>The thoughts on allowing some cars in that might otherwise not qualify,
>>from my end, was based on a desire to allow the drivers, in my case of
>>mention, specifically JK Jackson and Glen Effinger in to play with us.
>I am
>>sure there are others on both sides of the "feud". Certainly it was not
>my
>>intent to have the full blown 1998 national level cars but rather to
>afford
>>the opportunity of some folks closely associated with the vintage
>efforts
>>to participate. JK has been into this for years and Glen has helped
>many of
>>us through the years.
>>
>>The emphasis is more on participation rather than to create hazards by
>>putting cars in the field capable of capture speeds dangerously in
>excess.
>>I do understand your concerns, this is after all a vintage event and I
>>would not desire SVRA to go the course of another sanction body and
>allow
>>anything with a checkbook. I was thinking maybe a fender flare might
>not be
>>looked upon so strongly. Safety would of course be the top priority and
>I
>>in no way propose we field any cars that don't meet that.
>>Russ
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>______________________________________________________
>Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>
|