> Setting a record has always been defined as performing against a standard.
> The recognized standard in land speed racing has always been a two way
> average across the same relative piece of real estate. You cannot claim
any
> record with a one way pass. Tail wind, down hill, etc. Why do we always
want
> to make it easier to set records? My records were set when you had to make
a
> qualifying run over the record and then the two way pass in opposite
> directions to get the record. I was not happy when they took the
qualifying
> pass out of the equation and I think all the recent records that have been
> set with two passes in the same direction should have an asterisk beside
> them identifying that fact.
> I will accept the fact that I am old fashioned and that they name streets
> after me. They are called "one Way"
> I have even been called opinionated but what do those people know?
>
Howard,
I was a little surprised to see your posting, considering your
accomplishments and stature in the LSR Group. I decided to "sleep on it" (aka
count to 100) before replying, but it still strikes me the same way this
morning.
The vast majority of record setters have no direct "say-so" in how
Riley(sp) Chemical Co. treats Bonneville, how Mother Nature prepares our
"playground", nor how the SCTA Race Committee decides how to run the meet. We
just run according to the rules and enjoy whatever "peer-recognition" we get
out of it.
When I was first directly involved in Speed Week we qualified one day,
spent the night in Impound, then ran two-ways the following morning. The
Vintage engines such as mine really had their tongues "hanging-out" by the
time they completed the third pass.
When the "Two-Club" was formed in the 50's the primary engines used were
the Flatty, GMC, Ford Model A, 303 Olds, 331 Caddy, 331 Chrysler, and the 239
Stude V-8. Considering the existing technology of the early 50's, a 200MPH
record in those days was about as exclusive as a 300MPH record is today.
What I'm driving at is, if you want to label todays "two-ways, same
direction, same real estate" records as "not quite as good as in the
good-old-days when we had to run three times over 2 days", maybe post-SBC
records should have the same connotation. Additionally, how about the guys
that set LSR records in the August 1999 heat with a rough sloppy course as
opposed to the favorable density-altitude and great salt at World Finals 1999?
For my part, there are no "classes-of-records", only
"records-in-classes". I have a special respect for the early 200MPH Club
inductees such as Chrisman, Neumayer, Hill, and many others who "made-it"
with the old-technology. Not to take anything away from any other "Two-Club"
member or Bonneville Record Holder, I consider them all to be in a pretty
exclusive group.
Whether they set their record(s) under favorable or unfavorable race
course and atmospheric conditions, with existing "old-technology" in the
50's, modern technology in the 90's, or "old-technology" during present-day
meets, they have indeed accomplished significant goals and are all due the
same "peer-recognition" regardless of the changes in SCTA-BNI event
procedures.
Ardun Doug King
///
/// land-speed@autox.team.net mailing list
///
|