[rollei_list] Re: OT - The 1967 Indy 500 and the turbine-powered car in it

Ardeshir Mehta wrote:

>On Saturday, January 29, 2005, at 01:35  AM, Frank Dernie wrote:
>
>  
>
>>There was much interest generated by the turbine car at Indy but as 
>>you say it is only mildly suitable for oval racing and even then not 
>>convincingly.
>>
>>Frank
>>    
>>
>
>This does not sound correct given what has been said about this race. 
>The turbine powered car driven by Parnelli Jones at Indy was almost a 
>whole LAP ahead of AJ Foyt, the next driver, till almost the end of the 
>race, when a bearing in the gear casing failed - nothing to do with the 
>turbine, please note. I don't know how much more convincing it can get, 
>than to be almost a lap ahead.
>  
>
Ardeshir,

In response to this post and your other recent one concerning movable 
aerodynamic devices I know I am getting perilously close to wrestling 
with the proverbial pig but let me point out that rules in sports exist 
largely to keep the sport competitive.  The name of the game is to work 
within the constraints.  All kinds of rules exist solely to keep the 
sport recognizable.  This is sport not war.  In war you do whatever it 
takes to win.  Spare no expense, bear any burden etc.  Are you aware 
that at Indianapolis there is a limit to the amount of fuel you can use 
to go the 500 miles?  Did you also know that the formulation of the fuel 
is constrained?  Changing these rules would clearly make it possible for 
the cars to be driven faster and produce a different set of outcomes.  
That is not the game.  Rightly or wrongly these are the rules of the 
game.  I remember basketball before the introduction of shot clocks and 
time in the lane clocks.  The addition of these rules had nothing to do 
with making to scores higher (or lower) but to change the nature of the 
play.  To keep it interesting for spectators.

David

Other related posts: