I didn't know that Keith was having any problems with the tech. I just
walked by and said this car isn't legal for the class. It was a joke,
and all took it that way. The last thing I would want to do is cause
Keith a problem.
Tom, Redding CA - #216 D/GCC
DrMayf wrote:
> But you knew I was the master of add thoughts. This one has to do with a Wes
> Potter comment made back when Keith was getting teched. He said something to
> the effect that his car was not matcjing the rule book for class and Dan
> Warner had to straighten it out...and TOm Bryant was suggesting that Keith's
> car needed to be looked at carefully because of class rules. Now I am not
> picking on anybody and I prolly have most of the facts wrong. But the real
> odd thought is that tech is for safety items, right? Not to see if a car
> meets class requirements, right? I think somewhere I even have a Dan Warner
> email saying this. I thought that the competetitor decided on his class,
> built his car according to his interpretaion of the rules, including all
> safety items, got his/her car teched, made runs, qualified, the run for the
> record. If the record attempt was successful, then the car was CERTIFIED as
> to meeting all class requirements at that time and then it was subject to
> protests for the real inspectors. IS this not the way the rule book says? I
> am mildy curious, and this will not affect one thing I do to my car because
> I am at the bottom of the engine break, car is non aerodynamic, and no hope
> of ever getting to a qualifying run... Just simply curious about some
> comments that made me have an odd thought or two...or was this a senior
> moment? Yeah, that's prolly it....brain fart....
>
> mayf, who now has to go out and play in the dirt.....
/// unsubscribe/change address requests to majordomo@autox.team.net or try
/// http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo
/// Archives at http://www.team.net/archive/land-speed
/// what is needed. It isn't that difficult, folks.
|