Jim,
This is my last post on this. I (for a change) am not trying to start a flame
war. My first reply to Dale (not myself, another one) was based on what
information I had, and was somewhat tongue in cheek. Since I am not
knowledgeable about cars, I do not expect you to be knowledgeable about
motorcycles hence the "do not know do not care comment". You may not like this ,
but I do not care much on the car rules because I do not race a car. So I
projected my feelings (maybe incorrectly) to the powers that be at the S.C.T.A.
My second reply (to another poster) was my opinion based on the facts. Not
to deride the S.C.T.A personally , while I agree that one may be able to do with
less breaks for motorcycles , it is an inescapable fact that a two cycle engine
has demonstrable advantages over a four cycle engine. Again, this is fact, not
opinion. So there are only a few logical conclusions to the lack of sensible
class breaks. A) Don't know....B) Don't care.......C) Know, but don't care cause
we've always done it this way. (the basis of my "good ole" comments) Again using
automotive analogies , if you don't think it is a big deal , run flatheads
against overhead valve engines and "just find a way to do it" like they used to
do. If you don't think that grouping is fair, how much less so for a two
cycle/four cycle pairing ?
Rather than bash the S.C.T.A. , I applaud the E.C.T.A. for being on the
forefront of it's thinking. At least they are trying to be leaders in their
thinking and not a cookie cutter organization. There are 14 displacement classes
, 16 engine classes , and 7 frame classes whatever that adds up to times 2 for
two cycle and four cycle class breaks and I believe you have a reasonable set of
classes. Even that number will be high because there is not a two cycle turbine,
electrical, pushrod or steam engines. The number of classes (motorcycle)
presently used about 150.
The amount of possibilities provide two things that one would think is a
cornerstone of any organization, fairness and competition. Fairness in the
recognizable differences in engine, frame and bodywork design. Competition in
providing all racers with new horizons to conquer , with fair competition being
the ultimate goal.
Sorry if you take may opinion personally , but they are what I believe based
on what I see and hear. Yes, I am passionate on the idea of fairness and
competition and yes I am opinionated , but I believe it is based mostly on fact
and not passion. The S.C.T.A. can prove me wrong by the demonstration of
equality between two and four cycle engines, or a recognition of the differences
and a corresponding rule change. Being steeped in tradition does not have to
mean steeped in stubbornness. They (E.C.T.A. & S.C.T.A.) can and will coexist ,
with or without you and me. I will continue to participate in land speed racing
and hope to give back to the participants and the organization some of what they
give to me, but I will still have my thoughts and opinions and fight for what I
believe is fair for ALL !
Dale Thomas.
(In case you are wondering . No, I do not race a two cycle engine , no I
presently have no records or have even raced , been going to the races for three
years, volunteer my time and in this case my opinions. No benefit for me in any
of this, other than it is what I believe. ) My apologies to anyone offended.
Jim Dincau wrote:
> If the phrase
> " It sure seems to me that there may be more of an interest in trying to
> cover a bunch of "good ole boys" from the "good ole days" records, than a
> fair , even application of the rules."
>
> isn't bashing what is it.
> Jim
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Dale & Evelyn Thomas <bikerschoice@worldnet.att.net>
> To: Joe Amo <jkamo@rapidnet.com>; Jim Dincau <jdincau@qnet.com>
> Cc: Dale <Dale@prodigy.net>; <land-speed@autox.team.net>
> Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 3:33 PM
> Subject: Re: Maxton Motorcycle engine class question
>
> > Guys,
> > I did not want to get sucked into this and you can read my previous
> reply
> > to Jim Dincau. It sure seems to me that there may be more of an interest
> in
> > trying to cover a bunch of "good ole boys" from the "good ole days"
> > records, than a fair , even application of the rules. If other sactions
> were
> > as steeped in tradition , they would probably want to cover the asses of
> > their friends too.
> > You cannot avoid change forever. Look at the stink raised by car guys
> > over modern electronic engine management systems and the old carb and
> points
> > mechanical systems. Were you the same people crying foul then ? What about
> > the proposed classes for older body styles of cars vs the newer sleeker
> > bodies ? Are not these examples of the potential suspected differences
> you
> > cite ? It is admirable that you want to preserve that part of the S.C.T.A
> > history, but that does not mean it is a logical or a fair application of
> > rules.
> > Using the logic you provide, flatheads should race OHV engines and find
> a
> > way of beating the inherent advantages of the design.
> > I am not trying to start the next "web war" here , but at a time when
> > you see references to where are we going to get the next generation of
> > racers , your closed minded approach to technology , fairness and common
> > sense in the guise of "Well....we've always done it this away" will scare
> > them away. People will always want to come to the salt at least once, but
> to
> > keep them coming back and carry on the tradition, you eventually have to
> > embrace change , and apply the rules evenly and fairly.
> > Again I do not want to insult anyone, but if you fail to grasp the
> > design advantages of a two stroke engine over a similar design four stroke
> ,
> > you are either a moron, or need to increase your knowledge on the subject.
> I
> > would be happy to discuss the differences with you if it would help.
> >
> > Sincerly
> > Dale Thomas
> > O.F.O.S. Racing
///
/// land-speed@autox.team.net mailing list
///
|