> In light of this I would suggest your write modifications
> to the current rules and present them to your [local region]
> for incorporation locally. Be sure and publish this in your
> newsletter, and at events for visitors.
This is an entirely reasonable suggestion, but it contains a serious problem:
the possible Balkanization of various Regional rulebooks.
For people who compete entirely within a given Region, no problem. But for those
folks that live on on near Regional boundries (or who travel) it's much better
if the rulebooks are consistent.
> Again my opinion, if either individual is so
> committed to having to win. Then they
> should be prepared to follow the letter of the rules.
I think it's possible to want to win without turning into a "win at all costs"
maniac. Winning is fun. Being _able_ to win, but just missing - that's fun too.
Showing up and being faced with _no chance at all_ to win, no matter how well
you drive - is that fun? Knowing that you have to baby the car and can't drive
full out because you'll certainly break that weak part you're not allowed to
replace - is that fun?
> A weenie protest, again in my opinon, is one that does not affect performance.
A "weenie" protest is a protest intended to accomplish in Impound what could not
be accomplished on the track. The more inconsequential the infraction, the
higher the "weenie factor".
Consider these scenarios:
1) Competitor A cannot beat Competitor B, no matter what - and the margins are
large. A notices B's wheels are too wide, and protests. Justified. Not Weenie.
Without question.
2) Competitor A and Competitor B trade wins at almost every event, and are in a
tight race for a year-end championship. No car is dominant. A needs 2 more wins
to wrap up the championship, and goes looking for rules infractions
_specifically to take B out of contention_ (that's important) and finds the
wheels. Weenie? Tough call. B is most definatly in the wrong by the letter of
the rules, but all he's done is make his car competitive. A doesn't want to
chance being beaten on the track, and is fishing. While this isn't weenie by the
rules, it sure _smells_ like weenie by intent....
3) Same as #2, except that A is enjoying the competition, notices the wheels,
and protests "for the integrity of the sport" - honestly, not for his own gain.
Not weenie by law, not weenie by intent... but should it have happened? What aim
did it serve? Who's interests were protected?
4) Same as 2, but A notices the wheels, talks to B, and decides that the only
effect is to level the playing field. A warns B not to do anything else, and
he'll overlook the wheels - he prefers having some competition, and decides that
B's car needs the wider wheels to be competitive. Competitor C (who's always
third - and he drives the same car as A) overhears the conversation, and
protests B at the next event. Weenie?
> Yes this has been done over and over.
And in every case that I've seen, the argument against it is the "slippery
slope" argument.
"We can't let ESP Camaros run subframe connectors, becuase then we have to let
(say) ASP Vipers use them, and that might make those cars too fast"
Well, you DON'T have to make (say) subframe connectors, or timing chain
adjusters, or whatever, universally applicable. Limit them to the cars with the
problems, and the "slippery slope" argument goes away.
>>The SEB works for Us, the Membership.
> Uh No, they do not "work" for us. They volunteer
> thier time to help us and our sport.
That their time is volunteered is admirable, but that doen't change the fact
that they are and must be responsible to the Membership and Their wishes. There
_is_ a certain element of "stewardship" involved, and a certain amount of
"protecting the Membership from Themselves" (otherwise the rules would change
every day) but if the Membership decides that they want (for instance)
individual modifications for individual cars, then the SEB must perforce
implement just that.
Making and administering those changes might well be a lot of work, but that
comes with the territory. "We cannot allow individual modifications to invidual
car types because it would be too much work to administer" doesn't hold water.
If it would be too much work under the current SEB structure, and the Members
want it, then the SEB _must_ be changed (somehow) to comply with the Member's
wishes.
How that might happen isn't important right now - it's an implementation detail.
It might - later on - become very important, but first the wishes of the
Membership need to be discovered.
Is what we have now "the right thing to do"? If not, what is?
DG
|