dg50@daimlerchrysler.com wrote:
> snip
>
> This is an entirely reasonable suggestion, but it contains a serious problem:
> the possible Balkanization of various Regional rulebooks.
I fail to understand your reference. Webster defines Balkanize: To divide a
region
or territory into small, often hostile units. As you sasying the rule books will
become
hostile, or the neighboring regions. At any rate I did reference the need to
publish
regional modifications to the rules just like in street tire classes, x-classes
and
various
other mutations across the country. These would not apply at Divisional and up
levels.
There are series out there with rule modifications, it mjust needs to be
available.
If an
out of region competitor is upset due to these modifications there can be
several
results. They may not come back, not great. They may protest or say something to
the region, the region can decide to address this or not. Ultimately the power
is
with the region.
>
>
> 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.
Possibly true, but that is not the case now in many areas.
>
>
> 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?
I'm sorry but this is the I class arguement and I do not buy it.
>
> > 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".
I do not agree, I do not protest because I do not care. If that is how someone
must
win or be competitive. Well they are not hurting me, I gauge my fun on my
performance.
When I am mad at Nationals or a pro or a divisional; I am mad at myself because
I
did
not drive to my full potential.
You can write any secnario you want but if there is a performance advantage then
this is
not im my opionion a weenie protest. And we are not talking about the new guy
who
came
to the autocross today with his really cool new wheels that are not legal. We
are
talking
about regular competitors who for what ever reason choose to compete illegally.
>
> Consider these scenarios:
>
big snip
> > 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.
"slippery slope" must be an argument you do not agree with.
I am in ESP and do not want SFC, nor do I intend to get in a debate about it,
there are others who do not want them as well.
>
> "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.
I agreee with this. And you have made my points;"protecting the Membership from
Themselves" The point I do not agree with is that because a group of people
agree
they want a change and do not get the change means that all of the membership or
even a majority of the membeship wants the same thing. So many think that
because
what they want does not happen then the SEB is not following the memberships
wishes. We all write the SEB they look at the comments, the arguments against
SFC, just to use an example, we sufficent in either content or quanity to
convince
them to not change this rule. I really hate the comments that say the SEB is not
doing
the job because some idea is not acted on.
Rob
|