Revisionist history?
I found Bill Pearce's comments about RARA/John Parker interesting...especially the comments about Parker being 'banned' back in the early '80's because he 'won too much', 'wasn't sponsored by a casino', and that his plane as 'non-conforming to the rules'.
That's an interesting way to look at it. But since there are always two-sides to the story, perhaps we can examine what REALLY happened, and then determine where the finger-pointing should go.
As "I" recall, it all came about from the 1977 'split' within the Formula 1 class. On the whole, the class seemed to feel that, since they were the only TRUE air racers, that they were better and more important than all of the other racing classes. But they couldn't agree on what design criteria made up the 'formula'.
So they split...half going to Formula 1, and the other half creating the Formula IXL. The result? Neither group had enough aircraft to field a competitive race. Neither group had enough clout to take on RARA. And, surprise...neither group had ANY fan or spectator interest.
I mean hell...am I the only one who remembers this? F-1 was fun up to that point...but this is what happens when you start taking yourself too seriously. It proved that the F-1 class is, was, and always will the the 'undercard' at Reno.
And hey...where do you think John Parker was during this time? Right smack in the middle of the controversy. Not exactly an 'innocent victim'.
Parker won three times at Reno, and pretty convincingly, with Wild Turkey. But he was never 'legislated out' because he won too much. If that were the case, Ray Cote would have been permanently banned (and enforced) long before.
And it had nothing to do with the fact that Cote's Shoestring was sponsored by Circus Circus either. Hell, Miss Candace had a Circus sponsorship too...but nobody legislated Red Baron & Precious Metal out of the Unlimiteds to 'allow' Cliff Cummins to win.
The fact of the matter is, the F-1/IXL thing resulted in a less-than-desirable show for the Reno/Mojave fans. So the "rule changes" Mr. Pearce is talking about was a solution to bring the two factions of the F-1 class back together during 1980-81. True...Parker's plane wasn't legal under the new rules adopted...but there were several other planes that fell under that too...and instead of quitting, their owners made the changes required and were 'legal' again.
It's all just my worthless .02.....but if you're going to point the blame at RARA for being unfair to John Parker in the past, maybe the finger should also be pointed at Parker himself for starting the controversy in the first place.
Ya think?
I found Bill Pearce's comments about RARA/John Parker interesting...especially the comments about Parker being 'banned' back in the early '80's because he 'won too much', 'wasn't sponsored by a casino', and that his plane as 'non-conforming to the rules'.
That's an interesting way to look at it. But since there are always two-sides to the story, perhaps we can examine what REALLY happened, and then determine where the finger-pointing should go.
As "I" recall, it all came about from the 1977 'split' within the Formula 1 class. On the whole, the class seemed to feel that, since they were the only TRUE air racers, that they were better and more important than all of the other racing classes. But they couldn't agree on what design criteria made up the 'formula'.
So they split...half going to Formula 1, and the other half creating the Formula IXL. The result? Neither group had enough aircraft to field a competitive race. Neither group had enough clout to take on RARA. And, surprise...neither group had ANY fan or spectator interest.
I mean hell...am I the only one who remembers this? F-1 was fun up to that point...but this is what happens when you start taking yourself too seriously. It proved that the F-1 class is, was, and always will the the 'undercard' at Reno.
And hey...where do you think John Parker was during this time? Right smack in the middle of the controversy. Not exactly an 'innocent victim'.
Parker won three times at Reno, and pretty convincingly, with Wild Turkey. But he was never 'legislated out' because he won too much. If that were the case, Ray Cote would have been permanently banned (and enforced) long before.
And it had nothing to do with the fact that Cote's Shoestring was sponsored by Circus Circus either. Hell, Miss Candace had a Circus sponsorship too...but nobody legislated Red Baron & Precious Metal out of the Unlimiteds to 'allow' Cliff Cummins to win.
The fact of the matter is, the F-1/IXL thing resulted in a less-than-desirable show for the Reno/Mojave fans. So the "rule changes" Mr. Pearce is talking about was a solution to bring the two factions of the F-1 class back together during 1980-81. True...Parker's plane wasn't legal under the new rules adopted...but there were several other planes that fell under that too...and instead of quitting, their owners made the changes required and were 'legal' again.
It's all just my worthless .02.....but if you're going to point the blame at RARA for being unfair to John Parker in the past, maybe the finger should also be pointed at Parker himself for starting the controversy in the first place.
Ya think?
Thanks Wayne, I hope Gene will be there this year.
Comment