Let me try to follow your logic..... You claim that
Rotax barrels have NEVER been very different from each other.....
And THAT's the reason why Rotax have (to quote YOU):
"worked hard to reduce the gap between a good and bad cylinder"
Errrr.... hold on there....
Those of us with a brain might notice just the SLIGHTEST discrepency there......
1) How CAN Rotax have done something to reduce the difference between barrels when you and THEY have told us for YEARS that there was NO significant difference betwen them?
2) How can it have been 'hard work' to produce a barrel that never showed ANY differences in the FIRST place....
3) How can the barrels be more consistent than the previous 'PERFECT' consistency that you have been SPOUTING about for YEARS?
You may be able to convince the IMMENSELY dim..... but not the REST of us!
**********
More crucially, if Rotax HAVE produced a barrel that is equal to their BEST barrels from the past, then the majority of you Rotaxers who want to run their OLD motors need to realise a few FACTS!
1) You are now up against a whole HOARD of 'good' engines, not just the one or two that you USED to see and those were ONLY in the hands of the RICHEST racers! Your standard one is now USELESS againts those .... and the new ones as well!
2) All of you who have paid LARGE sums for the super quick barrels in the past have now WASTED that money.... because every Tom Dick and Harry will be able to buy it's equal... off the SHELF!
3) It may WELL explain why those peiople who seem to have been in the 'know' have got RID of their 'quick motors' before the announcements about the 09 were made..... think about it.....!
********
By the way, Stec..... I understand that the Labour party are looking for someone to replace Alistair Campbell. He had the 'skill' of being able to LIE in a 'convincing manner' about something that was BLATANTLY and OBVIOUSLY a lie....
I can get the phone number of the House of Commons for you .... if you are interested....
Ian
|
|