In a message dated 7/7/00 12:05:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
lamfalus@excite.com writes:
> Let's say you have two very similar cars in HP, weight, drivetrain, car A
> and car B. If car A has a camber range from the factory of 0-1 degree, and
> car B has a camber range of 0-3, and car B ends up dominating because of the
> camber help, then the owners of car A would obviously want either their car
> or car B put in a different class because they can't match the competitive
> level of car B. Now, if we allow ALL cars whatever alignment they see fit,
> then car A can now keep up with car B and no reclassification is necessary
> and there are less complaints etc.
Alignment "adjustability" is just another thing you have to consider if you're
trying to pick a certain car for a certain class. It's one of the advantages
or
disadvantages that are part of the "package" you select, and the classing of
the car over a period of time will reflect that. Your argument misses the
fact
that there are some cars with minimum alignment adjustability that are
capable of winning their class at the National level. If everyone was allowed
additional or unlimited adjustability on cars that don't have it now, those
cars
that are already at the top of their class would have to be moved to a higher
class. How will this increase parity within the current classes?
GH
|