Re: Leonard Carr's car; 2000 book, pg 56 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence,
"Removal....as long as the body is not altered in length, wide or contour". That
was the statement, and I guess the typical entrant car pictured there that had
me looking for a accurate interpretation. Don't get me wrong, I fer lengthening,
not agin it.
Rich
Dan Warner wrote:
> Richard,
>
> The answer to your question re: the Benham & Carr Berkley on the 2000
> rulebook cover is easy. The M/S class is currently/probably the class most
> open for innovation. A small base vehicle which was sold as a sports car,
> 130" wb, any frame, and liberal aero make for some strange bed fellows.
> Engine size aside, as long as an entrant can provide documentation as to the
> availability of the base car and the stock dimensions so that impound can
> verify the legality of the car, that would make Leonard Carr's car (no pun
> intended) one of the best choices for class. As in the past the uproar that
> this vehicle has destroyed the class "everyone has to have one" is in the
> wind. When Ron Benham first brought out his Monza then the Crosley that Earl
> Wooden currently runs the cry was the same. As you can see other racers have
> found ways to compete and set records in various classes against these cars
> without using the body dujour.
>
> What are your questions regarding the legality of the Berkley? Maybe I can
> help.
>
> Dan W
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Richard Kensicki <richk@sparta-junction.com>
> To: <land-speed@autox.team.net>
> Sent: Friday, February 11, 2000 4:26 PM
> Subject: Thanks for Opel GT Input
>
> > Thanks for all the replies about a possible Opel GT for the mile. Are
> > there any pictures of Bill Ward's Opel on line?
> >
> > I keep rereading the rule book section for modified sports and then look
> > at the rule book cover (2000 edition) and say (not out loud) how does
> > that car run as B modified sports? I must be too legalistic.
> >
> > Rich
> >
|