Given the public nature of this opinion, I thought a right of reply was justified.
Firstly, an excellent result, no doubt. Which is why we chose to run an image of your car in the current Tarmac magazine. From the sniff of sarcasm, however, I do find it surprising that there is a negative overview.
For those who don't have a copy, let me quote the caption to the photo supporting your entry, your effort and your result:
"Greg Johnson won showroom class by so much, some rivals suspected (hoped) it may not quite be 'showroom' spec."
This was a very carefully worded caption taking into account the many competitors (many with driving credence) who had been beaten by so much, and were concerned that your car was doing similar times to the 'outright' Evo IXs; they seriously called into question the car's legality - it was a hot topic and remains so. We know for a fact three separate teams were considering a protest against your car, but did not lodge them as they considered it was not in the best interest of the sport.
Tarmac magazine simply suggested that you did so well, your competitors 'hoped' you were cheating. That's a positive. If this caption led to the loss of an international airline sponsor, sincere apologies.
As far as my own efforts in the Lotus Cup 260, from what I can gather then and now, my Queenstown time was equal third quickest with Rex Broadbent. If that is incorrect, I'm happy to discontinue quoting it.
As for your overall result, I did in fact mis-read the results. My apologies. It is a superb effort to finish 10th outright in the combined field, beating all but two of the Evolution Lancers that have the freedoms of more modifications and beating last year's similar Showroom-winning Evo 9 by almost three-and-a-half minutes. To do that in a totally showroom stock car equates to one of the most impressive drives of TT09.
Regards,
Dean Evans