I think it is safe to say that we are not going to agree. I do respect your
right to
express your opinons, particulrally in the polite manner we have used. This is
missing many times in this forum.
Anyways I will say I think you are quite a ways off base, but you may start a
revolution and get you ideas passed. Good luck, look for me on the other side
if this should make past the SEB for member content.
Rob
dg50@daimlerchrysler.com wrote:
> dg50@daimlerchrysler.com wrote:
>
> >> 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.
>
> If each region defines its own special allowences per class, then there is a
> high probability that there will exist differences in what is/is not allowed
>in
> each region's implementation of that class.
>
> Region A allows car X in class QS to have wider wheels, but same
> diameter/offset. Region B, same car, same class requires same width, but may
>be
> any diameter. Region C requires "National" rules etc.
>
> Under such a scenario, competing in multiple Regions requires a different set
>of
> equipment - or a different car - to compete in the same "QS" class. This isn't
> good, IMHO.
>
> >> 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.
>
> Why not? Why should everybody be able to compete with the car of his/her
>choice
> and have an equal chance at winning as everyone else in the class?
>
> > You can write any secnario you want but if there is a
> > performance advantage then this is not im my opionion
> > a weenie protest.
>
> OK, that depends very heavily on what you consider a "performance advantage"
>
> If "performance advantage" means "performance in excess of the class norm"
>then
> I agree with you - nobody should be able to gain an unfair advantage over the
> other competitors, and an illegal modification to that end is cheating, pure
>and
> simple.
>
> If, however, "performance advantage" means "performance in excess of what the
> car was cabable of before" - without reference to the rest of the class'
> performance - then I disagree, at least in spirit.
>
> I see it this way: Each class has a "reference car", a car who's performance
> when fully built to the extent of the rules, defines the class. Any car that
>is
> in the same class should be allowed whatever it takes to bring its performance
> level up to that of the reference car. (but no higher) If a given car has a
> modification that does not increase its performance above that of the
>reference
> car, then that modification should be allowed, IMHO.
>
> > 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.
>
> True... but is a majority always required?
>
> Let's say that uhhh... Yugo drivers are tired of being trashed by uhh... Skoda
> drivers (trying hard to pick makes that there aren't real fights about :( )
>in M
> Stock, because the Skoda drivers can run 195 75R13 tires, and the biggest tire
> you can fit on a Yugo is a 135 80R13 because of the stock wheel width. In
>terms
> of power to weight, balance, whatever the cars are very similar, but the tire
> width restriction means that the Yugo guys can't compete. They want the
>ability
> to run a wider wheel/tire combo.
>
> The vast majority of the membership doesn't care. The Skoda guys might even be
> opposed (suprise!) to the projected evening out of the class - they kinda like
> having their unfair advantage. But would it be wrong for the SEB to assess the
> proposal, make a decision on if the tire allowence would give the Yugos an
> unfair advantage, and if not, give them the allowence?
>
> Under the current rules, the argument against this is that it opens up cans of
> worms for other classes. So what? How can parity within classes be bad?
>
> > I really hate the comments that say the SEB is not
> > doing the job because some idea is not acted on.
>
> I have not said anything of the sort, at least, I never meant to give the
> impression that the SEB wasn't doing their job - far from it.
>
> DG
|