From: "Marvin Kaye" <marv@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: superchargers
To: lml
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 11:05:33 -0500
Message-ID: <web-800430@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <000f01c52b09$be7a6700$6401a8c0@compaqvdhfeuva>
References: <000f01c52b09$be7a6700$6401a8c0@compaqvdhfeuva>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Posted for Jack Cowell <jackcowell@optonline.net>:

  Gentlemen – after following your series of email exchanges and with all
  due respect to you both, I think your point about “racing” has been
  misconstrued.
  
  To me, "racing" is about competing to win in the context of a specific
  contest.
  
  Therefore, to conclude that racing results can be reduced to testimony
  to who has the best blower system is a stretch. Here’s why.
  
  Regardless of the venue (air, sea, or land), winning has two central
  components --"pilot" performance, and mechanical performance. I will
  leave out luck and cheating and other even less finite factors in an
  effort to keep this posting less of a tome. And again it is central to
  this discussion to anchor those performances in event specifics.
  
  As an example, what wins in a Ľ-mile drag race would be shrapnel in
  another contest. And the reaction time of the winner, while critical in
  a sprint would be a rounding error at Daytona or Indy or Le Mans.
  
  Of course, once the winner is decided, then the marketers get involved
  in leveraging the competitive success into product development and sales
  successes. When taking into account the specifics of the “victory”, all
  I would say is “caveat emptor”.
  
  The point is with so many variables, to look to "racing" as an
  endorsement of turbo supercharging vs. supercharging -- or vice versa --
  as an affirmation of either system is of very debatable value. -----