Excuse me, isn't UGO a FIAT product. :-))
Thomas E. Bryant wrote:
>
> Thanks for the Arbitration!!!
> Tom
>
> Ugo Fadini wrote:
> >
> > Hi list,
> > I just went through all the messages on the topic of sanctioning and rules,
> > all in one drop, and may I say the whole discussion is nonsense?!?
> >
> > But discussing and arguing is FUN (as an italian I am most qualified to say
> > that: we have just about 35 million soccer coaches over a population of 30
> > million males, and about 60 million would-be prime ministers over a total
> > population of 60 million - yes, that includes infants) so I will add my own
> > opinions...
> > Also, I am not a racer, and the "interested spectator" point of view is
> > vital, isn't it?
> >
> > Oh, by the way, I see that understanding between americans and british has
> > not made any progress: "two countries divided by a common language"...
> > Well, italians have a very bad opinion of themselves and spend a lot of
> > time and energy in self-insulting; and this bad opinion is generally
> > endorsed in international circles, so spare any nasty comments my words
> > might prompt for a better cause, please!!!
> >
> > It seems to me that the opposed groups (pro-FIA and against-FIA) speak
> > totally different languages (just like americans and british...) without
> > being aware of it. Which makes mutual understanding a little difficult...
> >
> > The SCTA and USFRA (not to forget the other early organizations that
> > eventually disappeared) were set up to organize land speed "racing": i.e. a
> > form of competition, that was born spontaneously several decades ago to
> > fullfill the desire of hot-rodders to go fast with a minimum of
> > restrictions, for fun, for sheer love of speed, to prove their technical
> > abilities, for personal prestige in their circle of friends and so on.
> > In the same way the NHRA and AHRA were formed to organize drag racing.
> > Land speed as a racing activity is based on a single measured distance (the
> > flying mile) and the sanctioning organizations change rules and classes
> > rather often to suit current technical trends and to overcome practical
> > problems.
> > The fact that the records would be recognised in wider circles than the
> > racing community, or not, was not an important issue, at least for a long
> > time. The records are there to be broken by the next racer and that's what
> > counts (and getting in the 200 Club, of course!). So much so, that those
> > who did care for international recognisement stayed at Bonneville the week
> > after Speed Week, when the AAA had their own speed week under FIA sanction.
> > For a long time there were no problems.
> >
> > The FIA does not organize "racing" in this area: strictly speaking, it does
> > not consider record breaking a racing activity, it just holds a book of
> > records based on a fixed set of rules that change very little over the
> > years, to allow direct comparison of technical achievements over long
> > periods of time. They allow only four different categories (production
> > automobiles, special construction automobiles and special vehicles - thrsut
> > evhicles, that is -, plus drag racers) because these are classifications
> > that will be good for ever (or for as long as the automobile, or anyway
> > free-rolling land vehicles will exist).
> > It certifies records on many different distances and times, in addition to
> > the flying mile.
> > And it is a fully internationsl body, in that it has affiliated
> > organizations in most countries of the world. It is based in france, but it
> > is not a "french" or a "european" organization, it is a world organization
> > that organizes not just the motoring sport, but all spects of the
> > automobile culture and life (well, at least in theory). It was formed
> > because the differnt local Automobile Clubs wanted it to exist, and the US
> > have been represented in it since 1927, by the AAA first, and then also by
> > USAC, NHRA, IMSA and others.
> >
> > Do we need them both? Of corse we do, because they fill different needs.
> > Could they co-exist? Yes, and indeed so far they did for half a century.
> >
> > So? Where is the problem?
> >
> > No problem regarding timing reliability: we all know SCTA/USFRA timing is
> > as good and as reliable as the FIA version (Did anybody question this? Not
> > that I am aware of, so why do so many people insist on this point???)
> > No problem regarding integrity and respectability: we all know the SCTA and
> > USFRA do a great, professional job (again, did anybody question this?)
> > No problem regarding the technical skill of the racers who build highly
> > efficient and often extremely well contructed and (pardon me) highly
> > sophisticated vehicles.
> >
> > Of course, the problem comes when people call "World" records those set
> > under SCTA/BNI/USFRA sanction. And in particular when one of these records
> > is faster than the equivalent FIA record: which, in the end, given the FIA
> > rules, mostly applies to records set by streamliners (and occasionally
> > lakesters)
> > A good example is the current SCTA/USFRA record for Turbine engined
> > vehicles, which is quite a bit faster than te FIA record (still belonging
> > to Donald Campbell's Bluebird in 1964!!)
> >
> > Now, anybody can call their records whatever they feel like. After all, the
> > Guinness book, which is a perfectly private (and commercial) group,
> > "sanctions" thousands of records in all fields: some people respect them
> > while others do not pay the slightest attention. And evrybody is happy.
> >
> > If the holder of an SCTA record in any category or class that has no
> > equivalent in the FIA rule book wishes to call it a "world" record, that's
> > fine. I would maybe object that if a particular type of body or engine is
> > only used in the USA, or if in other countries racers could not set records
> > according to those rules the claim would be unfair, but it would still be
> > up to the record holder to decide wether it is fair or not. (May I remind
> > that till a few years ago SCTA and USFRA had different rule books and two
> > separate sets of records: which ones should have been considered "world"
> > records at that time??).
> >
> > The problem arises when we compare records set under different conditions,
> > but which, from a vehicle classification point of view, could be sanctioned
> > by either organization (basically: production and streamliners).
> > Now, if we forget for a moment the definition the FIA gives of a World
> > (i.e.: unlimited) record as opposed to an International (i.e.: class)
> > record (or a National, or a local...), sincerely, I don't see why, if
> > conditions were the same", we should not consider Vesco's SCTA/USFRA record
> > a "World" record, superseding the Campbell one.
> >
> > The point is all here: "IF CONDITIONS WERE THE SAME". Now, the one hour and
> > the two way rules are enforced on ALL records set on flying distances by
> > the FIA, while they are not by the SCTA and USFRA.
> > Do these rules make a significant difference? Pardon me, I know some people
> > do not agree, but yes, I think they do. Back to my example: Vesco was in
> > fact ready to comply with the FIA rule, as FIA sanctioning was available at
> > the World Finals, but COULD NOT make a return run in the opposite direction
> > in time. If you are looking for a confirmation that the FIA rule is more
> > restrictive - that is: it makes the record more difficult to achieve -
> > there you have it. The same thing happened to Mickey Thompson in 1960 and
> > to many other people over the years, both sides of the ocean.
> > (If it was the other way around, and the SCTA/USFRA rules were more
> > restrictive, who would care about the FIA sanction any more?!!?)
> >
> > >From what I read, some of you americans agree about this and would welcome
> > the one hour rule and only dismiss the two way within one hour part only
> > because it is unpractical for Speed Week.
> > In fact, FIA sanctioning has always been available at World of Speed and
> > the World Finals, but I also remember it was available at Speed Week not
> > many years ago and indeed, Al Teague's still-standing record was set at
> > Speed Week in 1991.
> >
> > Maybe it could be set up at Speed Week again: after all by wednesday
> > activity at Speed Week is usually pretty slow, and there would be plenty of
> > time to allow those interested to set records under FIA sanctioning.
> > Or eventually the SCTA and USFRA might just sanction records using exactly
> > the FIA rules: the FIA would still not recognise those records, but I am
> > sure nobody in the racing community, either side of the Atlantic (and
> > Pacific !) would ever object over calling those records "World" records,
> > once set in the same conditions.
> > As Beverly Stanley (I believe it was her) pointed out sometime ago ago,
> > that was the very idea that drove to setting up the LSA: too bad that
> > opportunity was wasted, but I do not see why the same path could not be
> > walked again.
> >
> > Until then, I guess we europeans (but some americans too), will still be
> > objecting whenever we will hear an SCTA/USFRA record called "world" record:
> > it does not mean we don't consider the american organizations respectable,
> > reliable, serious, professional or whatever (if we did, we would not come
> > to Speed Week, we would not seek the friendship of american racers, we
> > would not even get involved in these discussions): it is just that we need
> > the words we use to have one and the same meaning for everyone in the whole
> > world, if at all possible, just to know what we are talking about. Other
> > than that, they are just words and a record set under SCTA or USFRA
> > sanction is as respectable and "offical" as an FIA record, just different.
> >
> > Ok, hope this is a useful contribution, specially towards a more relaxed
> > approach to the problem. Otherwise, as I said, we italians know that we are
> > always wrong. (Let us be happy with our great loosers, Ferrari and Luna
> > Rossa!)
> >
> > Ugo Fadini
|