On Sunday, January 30, 2005, at 11:15 PM, David Seifert 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 [...] let me point out that rules in sports exist > largely to keep the sport competitive. [...] David, I was only referring to Frank's statement that turbines were not convincingly suitable for oval racing, which, as I wrote, didn't sound correct given the known history of that race. If Frank had said instead that turbines were banned from the Indy 500 because they had a huge competitive advantage over ICEs, ... (I'll leave you to finish the sentence)! Cheers.