Dan are you saying if something is unfair it is a good thing that it
reamins unfair.. or is even better to build on the mistakes of others??
you are confusing me here..Did you read any of the posts regarding the
rotary stuff?? To add even more fuel to fire why excactly do i have to
give a rat's ass what Baskeville thinks or expects...Does he actually
care what i think...probably not so I guess he and i are even on
that...Look how about if i promise not to put one in a roadster LOL...
Dan if you didn't read all the posts about it you ought to because
someday there just might be a rule you want amened or a new class then
it will be Your Turn..
Dave Dahlgren
Dave Haller wrote:
>
> My Two Cents,
> Dan and Dave, take a look at Gary Baskervilles(spelling) article in the
> latest hot rod edition. He starts out writing how he has been away from
> Bonneville for awhile but knows some things don't change. The steadfast
> stance of SCTA is one of those refreshing things according to the article,
> that he was counting on, I have to agree,
> Dave Haller #93
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "dahlgren" <dahlgren@uconect.net>
> To: "Dan Warner" <dwarner@electrorent.com>; <Land-speed@autox.team.net>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2000 5:02 AM
> Subject: Re: Rotary factor
>
> > Dan and rules committee..............
> > So the logic is if someone set a record with an unfair rule that all
> > that follow must be subjected to the same degree of unfair LOL what a
> > crock if i ever heard one.. Sort of like the 'the floggings will
> > continue until morale improves'.. Dan in all honesty I am really
> > disappointed in the scta on this one. I can not believe that this was
> > turned down. It tells me a couple of things..Mostly that SCTA does not
> > really care about conforming in any way to the standards set by the
> > motor sport community (aka the rest of the world), and that they do not
> > see fit to change an unfair rule as technology moves forward. The piston
> > engines are a lot better than they were when the rotaries first came out
> > and the rotary is still the same place. Geez it does not even describe
> > the physics involved in the combustion process... makes me want to ask
> > if there are any sacred 'F' class records that have to stay intact...
> > Are there any engineers on the rules committee?? If so any mechanical
> > ones??? Did anyone think it had merit or was this universally
> > dismissed???
> > A pretty disappointed guy here in CT....
> > Dahlgren
> > Dan Warner wrote:
> > >
> > > Dave,
> > >
> > > The feeling among the rules guys was that the existing records were set
> with
> > > the current factor. So anyone planning on running a rotary would be
> racing
> > > these records.
> > >
> > > Dan
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: dahlgren <dahlgren@uconect.net>
> > > To: Dan Warner <dwarner@electrorent.com>
> > > Cc: <land-speed@autox.team.net>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2000 3:47 AM
> > > Subject: Rotary factor
> > >
> > > > Dan I have heard that the request to change the factor for rotary
> > > > engines was turned down.. Why might I ask ? what was the reasoning on
> it
> > > > all?? Surely it was documented enough... If it was due to a lack of
> cars
> > > > that is sort of a self fulfilling sort of thing.. bad factor no
> > > > cars...How is this appealed??
> > > > Dave Dahlgren
> > > >
> >
|