Man you just have to love the special construction categories don't
you.. none of this nonsense... For all these car classes you really
gotta love them. This is all starting to sound so legal and tough to
police that it is beyond all belief. I have to ask though why?? The real
key to the electronics is the ability to make a lot of power through the
whole rpm range. If you are only concerned with a couple thousand rpm
that is maxed out then it is not nearly as much an issue. In many cases
a middle of the road electronics car will make less power than a car
with a tunnel ram and carb...Why is everyone so afraid of them ??? Why
don't just run one if you think they are better. At some point this is
going to get to having a class for every conceivable car.. 34 ford
blown,unblown,gas , fuel,electronic,chopped,full body..etc then the same
for 35 ford....My humble opinion tells me that everyone wants a record
and they want one with the car they own right now and the easiest way to
get one is have a class made that fits their car perfectly and no one
else has a car that will run in that class...Maybe it would be easier to
have a class that is just 'Dave's car' and no other car/driver can run
in that class because they don't have "dave's car" Geez let's go racing,
what ever happened to competition?? I would be very curious to get the
info that would tell me how many cars run each class at a given meet and
annually. That might be a better indication as to how many new classes
are needed. Seems to me that currently most classes only have one or two
cars in them now. they are almost a personal car class at this point.
Dahlgren
John Beckett wrote:
>
> List
>
> Have been out of town pretty much for a week now, between Maxton and my
> son's golf tourney, had about 155 e-mails on the 'puter'. So as I finish
> reading almost all of them looks like Dan has struck a cord that most all of
> us have comments or some feelings on. Guess its time to interject my
> thoughts as well.
>
> 1, The thought of more classes at 'Maxton' is enough to make me run around
> the yard, screaming wildly and pulling my hair out (and it's already getting
> to thin now). We already have double the 'scooter' classes back east. Oh God
> that's 150 more classes.
>
> 2, OK I'll get over #1 in a minute. It's an administrative thing. Moving on,
> lets define the main (primary) reason for this category. Is it an
> AERODYNAMIC issue or is it an ELECTRONICS issue????
>
> 3, If there is a time period for this category '49 to ???? Cut it off at 25
> or 30 years, not 1981. If that winds up at 1973 or 1978 so be it (Keith, I
> would guess, can claim his '80 Camero is a '73). A '78 Mustang is still a
> lot more aerodynamic than a '68 Mustang. So even with a 25 or 30 year cut
> off I don't see anyone running to the garage to take the '57 Chevy out of
> mothballs to run on the "salt". Basically your going to have a proliferation
> of '70's cars with an occasional '53 Stude thrown in. OK, so weren't true
> "Muscle Cars" built in the 60's and early 70's anyway? The more I think
> about this proposal the more I think a 25 year cut off is the appropriate
> way to go.
>
> 4, As for "electronics". Simple, keep it limited to the technology of the
> time. Carburetors, mechanical fuel injection, electronic CD ignition
> systems. But don't forget, by the late 70's there were already some forms of
> 'puters' in cars, almost everything was electronic ignition, and MSD had
> crank triggers on the market. So if your going to allow cars to '81 your
> already on you way into the "electronics" age. To my way of thinking, if
> this is an issue maybe we should definitely make the cut at 1973 and
> eliminate all electronics from the class period.
>
> Obviously there are going to be differing view points on this issue, but
> I hope these that I have just offered will be taken as constructive.
>
> John (its headed to 87 in WNC today) Beckett
|