Richard Taylor wrote:
>
> Somewhat nebulous guidelines could not be better stated. Well done.
> Richard Taylor
> Atlanta
>
> At 06:58 AM 11/1/98 PST, Mark Palmer wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>From rem9@cornell.edu Sat Oct 31 22:53:45 1998
> >Russ,
> >
> >Now that we've all jumped down your throat on this ... I think the MG
> >perspective may be just a shade different for a couple reasons.
> >Historically, MGVR started out in 1981 as a group for T-series ONLY. We
> >added MGA's in about 1988, and MGB's etc in the early 1990's. There are
> >still some T-series guys who remain pretty skeptical of the later
> >models. You wouldn't really have an analogous situation with Triumphs,
> >unless you had started out with a about fifty Triumph 1800 Roadsters who
> >didn't want to allow anything without a dickey!
> >
> >Also, to date the vintage MG community hasn't had close ties with
> >current or recent SCCA racers. We do have one or two on our mailing
> >list, but the relationship is not close. The majority of our members do
> >not even know who Kent Prather is, for instance (nor do they much care).
> >Pity, in a way.
> >
> >Sounds like the Triumph group has somewhat closer ties between vintage
> >types & SCCA types -- which would naturally lead to more acceptance of
> >flares, air dams, etc.
> >
> >I'm not saying my position has changed -- I still don't want cars
> >prepared to modern standards in the MG/TR Challenge race -- but I think
> >I can understand why we differ slightly in our perspective.
> >
> >Regards,
> >Mark
> >>Bill et al,
> >>The thoughts on allowing some cars in that might otherwise not qualify,
> >>from my end, was based on a desire to allow the drivers, in my case of
> >>mention, specifically JK Jackson and Glen Effinger in to play with us.
> >I am
> >>sure there are others on both sides of the "feud". Certainly it was not
> >my
> >>intent to have the full blown 1998 national level cars but rather to
> >afford
> >>the opportunity of some folks closely associated with the vintage
> >efforts
> >>to participate. JK has been into this for years and Glen has helped
> >many of
> >>us through the years.
> >>
> >>The emphasis is more on participation rather than to create hazards by
> >>putting cars in the field capable of capture speeds dangerously in
> >excess.
> >>I do understand your concerns, this is after all a vintage event and I
> >>would not desire SVRA to go the course of another sanction body and
> >allow
> >>anything with a checkbook. I was thinking maybe a fender flare might
> >not be
> >>looked upon so strongly. Safety would of course be the top priority and
> >I
> >>in no way propose we field any cars that don't meet that.
> >>Russ
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >______________________________________________________
> >Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
> >
Dear Folks:
I appreciate the invitation, and I would really like to bring the Group
44 TR-6, but bear in mind that even 25 years ago it ran with some pretty
agressive cantilever tires (10" footprint), trick gears, acid dipped,
Mercedes halfshafts, and all the other Group 44 tricks that Bob T. could
get by the SCCA. It still has all these goodies and will get around
Lime Rock at 1:00 or Savannah in a 1:21, so this may not be a fair car
in relationship to other TR-6's. Let's face it, the car is a ringer,
but it is a 1972 ringer, not a 1998 ringer. Please advise if you still
want it. Bill Warner
|