Re: 4000q a winner -hmmmm

["Graydon D. Stuckey" <graydon@apollo.gmi.edu>]

On Tue, 19 Sep 1995 STEADIRIC@aol.com wrote:

> >divisionals in a 4kq".  Well, for all intents and purposes he proved that 
> >wrong.  He was beaten by an mx-6? how long was that driver doing auto-X????
> 
> He did'nt win at divisionals.......  The MX-6 Will beat the 4000Q it's 
> that simple.  1/2 second may not sound like a long time but it's 
> lightyears in a Auto-X.  I've seen national titles won buy .002sec 
> cumulitive over 2 days.  Now being in the same 1/10 that's something to 
> get excited over.  Remember in most auto-x's 1/2 sec is 1% of total time, 
> in racing that a lot.
Eric, Scott, Bob, and Steve,

	I agree, that 0.500 seconds is a long time in an autox, but I 
think Steve has done very well coming within .5 seconds of Andy Hollis.  

	In the Detroit and Saginaw regions, there are a few guys that are 
definitely national level drivers.  They usually run in their own 'index' 
class, but if they do run in the regular class, they are 2-3 seconds 
ahead of the next class up, nevermind their own class!  The fact that 
Steve got within .5 sec of Andy Hollis, and at a real 'this one counts' 
autox, is very significant.  
	I contend that a freak of nature that makes Steve blink the wrong
(right) way could shave off that last .5 seconds, and he could actually
beat Hollis.  I think with a little practise, Steve just might have what
it takes, even in a 4KQ, to beat the almighty MX6 of Andy Hollis. 

	I may be wrong :-)  Why don't you all come to Ionia, MI in 
October, and find out?

Later,											
Graydon D. Stuckey										
graydon@apollo.gmi.edu								
'86 Audi 5000 CS Turbo Quattro, GDS Racing Stage II				
'83 Mazda RX7 w/13B, GDS Racing Stage 58474