land-speed
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: rws

To: Dave Dahlgren <ddahlgren@snet.net>
Subject: Re: rws
From: "Thomas E. Bryant" <saltracer@awwwsome.com>
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2003 14:06:33 -0700
List,

It would seem to me that "Unlimited Innovation" has to fall within the 
confines of safety rules. Being open minded is great, but we shouldn't 
be so open minded that our brains fall out. I have been sitting by and 
wondering what all this fuss about "rws" is about. I can't see why 
anyone would want to do this when it seems evident that those who have 
tried it want no part of it.

It is good to see that finally...it is understood that...at both the 
lakes and at Bonneville, we run at the pleasure of the SCTA/BNI & USFRA 
Organizations. They are the ones that work their butts off to make it 
happen and the ones ultimately responsible for the safety of the meets. 
All this discussion is amusing, but until the rules change, it is just 
that....discussion.

Tom, Redding CA - #216 D/CC

Dave Dahlgren wrote:
> Don't let that phrase of 'unlimited innovation' fool you too much The 
>innovation
> is very closely regulated and controlled in all ways. if it were unlimited i
> could build a RWS car with traction control and drive by wire but i suspect it
> could not get in for time only so save your breath. What it is in reality is 
>the
> amount of innovation that can and will be tolerated by the car clubs in So Cal
> area.... Lets all say points championship one more time for the lakes meets 
>and
> lets have the chorus really belt it out so we are all in agreement on this
> fact..
> 
> Dave Dahlgren
> 
> john robinson wrote:
> 
>>partly this discussion is just an exercise in bench racing, partly its'
>>because the powers that be have restricted the Streamliner class lately,
>>re: no RWS, no Traction control, partly because a few of us are
>>inquisitive...and partly because somebody did try to use it, and maybe
>>somebody else still wants to try...the Streamliner class rules begins by
>>stating it is for unlimited innovation, this is innovation, maybe not
>>what >you< would want to try, but it still is innovative.....





<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>