>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.
Hmm. So I can take some car that, although it is classed in CS, is not good
enough to win CS (i.e., is not the "reference" car), modify it so that I can
run with Kevin Bailey, Andy McKee, etc. (regardless of typical stock rules),
and that's O.K. Anybody else see a problem with this? (Besides the fact
that I'm not sure a car can be modified _that_ much?)
*Even if* we thought that modifying cars to make them competitive with the
"reference" cars in their class were in theory O.K., in practice that would
be a nightmare. Imagine this: I step out of my car (which is modified to
let *me* run with the fast guys), and my husband, *who is a better driver*
and shares my car, steps in. Now, the car's performance is going to be
*above* that of the reference car. So, subtract some of those modifications
to make him competitive with the CS fast guys, and now I'm not.
>> Who's the judge of when "it was on par with the top dogs in his class"?
>Well, it would have to be a competitor, who felt that he was operating
under
>some handicap, who would then have to be able to make the case that 1) The
>handicap existed 2) that it was car, not driver, based and 3) The proposed
>remedy would serve to equalize the problem, not create a new one. The SEB
would
>have to feel that the case had merit, and then put it into the rulebook
after
>suitable review.
You cannot separate the car from the driver when you have individuals making
random modifications to particular cars. In other words, once you change a
car from stock, you have no way of knowing if you have moved it "up to the
level of the reference car (but no higher)" or not. Saying that it should
be established that it is car-based is a nice idea, but how are you going to
do that when very few people are driving that car? Particularly when good
drivers tend to choose to drive good cars (see below).
Maybe car X would be competitive in class Z if component B were
added/subtracted/changed. Maybe car X would be competitive in class Z if
component B were left alone but driver A were driving it. We'll never know,
because we cannot force top drivers (or mediocre drivers or crummy drivers)
to drive cars they don't want to drive. Yes, there are some cars that are
"knifes at gunfights." Some of those should probably be reclassed, but some
of them probably look worse than their true potential because the top
drivers aren't interested in driving them (no slams to anyone intended).
>From my perspective, there are several choices:
1) Drive an noncompetitive car, enjoy improving your skills, and be happy
with not winning a national championship. (Although you can win
locally--says the ex-Shelby driver who beat second gen. MR2 once or
twice...)
2) Take an noncompetitive car, make modifications, move to the appropriate
SP, P, or MOD class, enjoy the events and improving your skills, and see
where you end up.
3) Get the "reference" car, prep it to the limits of stock rules, and see
where you line up.
4) Think you have to win at all costs, cheat to do so, and pout when you
don't. (Not implying anything about anyone, so please, no flames...)
mlc
Mari L. Clements, Ph.D.
Department of Psychology
Penn State University
442 Moore or 160 USB 1
University Park, PA 16802-3104
(814)863-5664
fax (814)863-7002
|