Loren Williams <Loren@kscable.com> wrote:
> dg50@daimlerchrysler.com wrote:
>> As much as you (with STS tires) and the SEB (with ECUs in Stock) may
hate
>> it, you're going to have to address these problems. The rules as written
>> cannot be enforced, which is the same thing as having no rule at all.
> And if there is no answer, what are we to do?
There is ALWAYS an answer. It may be distasteful and unpopular, but it's
there.
> The tire issue is basically dead for now, I think we're
> at Spec Tire or status quo.
Then you're at Spec Tire. Status Quo is NOT, I say again, NOT a valid
answer.
To be honest, I've always expected STS to be dropped and STR retained (for
this very reason) but it seems that the "street tire" aspect of STS is your
prime selling point, not the "import scene" aspect.
So it's Spec Tire or Die.
> But as the "Subject Matter Expert", how do you propose that the SEB go
about
> addressing ECUs in Stock?
It's the same problem. The contents of the ECU cannot be policed. So you
either provide a spec ECU or you open it up and live with the results.
It is my firm opinion that ECU programming will have to be opened in Stock.
I see no way around it. As it sits now, only the cheaters get the
advantages. Well if you can't prove who's cheating, then let everybody have
access to the same advantages.
The saving grace here is that *given that most of the mechanicals in Stock
class will remain unchanged (because they _are_ verifiable)* the difference
in performance between an open-ECU car and a real-stock ECU car is likely
to be small for 90% of the cases. This means the real-world impact of
putting this rule on the books - as scary as it sounds on paper - is likely
to be minor.
> I'm going to have to stick with what I said yesterday. Some things are
> unenforcable or enforcement is beyond our means as amateur competitors.
We
> just have to accept that.
Absolutely. And if you can't enforce the rule, don't make it in the first
place.
AKA - "Doctor, it hurts when I do this!"
"Don't do that"
DG
|