> I understand what you are saying, but it just does not hold water. The
> only way to express intent is to actually write it into the rules.
True. If only our rules were so well-written.
> I was initially disappointed at the very rapid progression of Formula
> Jr. from a relaxed fun parent/kid thing into an extremely competitive
> and technically demanding class. Bad on me...I forgot that any class of
> competition will attract those who will utilize the written rules to the
> fullest extent despite intent. Goes with the territory I guess.
Someone else eluded to the same idea only with more of a "you can't mandate as
streetable Solo car" slant. Why not? It just takes forethought. What things
about a competitive SP car make it unstreetable? Ground clearance? Require a
minimum 4" ground clearance (arbitrary number, don't nitpick it). Easily
checked with a 4" block of wood, if the car can be driven over it by the
competitor without disturbing it, it's good. (and specifically address the
fact that ride height may be checked immediately after the car exits the
course, so as to prevent the infamous "downjacking" struts) Stiffness? This
would be more difficult to police, but we could limit spring rates. We could
put a limit on the amount of negative camber allowed, something like 2
degrees. We've already limited tread compounds (please don't stir up the
"treadwear isn't a good indicator" thread), treadwidth, and wheel width. We
have plenty of drivetrain limitations already in place as well.
With a thoughtfully written ruleset, a person COULD go build an ST car using
the rules as a "spec sheet" and it wouldn't matter if it was daily-driven or
not, it would not be any more competitive than those cars that ARE daily
driven.
Writing rules that accomplish the desired goal, are easy to understand, and
can't be blatantly exploited is unquestionably difficult, but certainly not
impossible.
--
Loren Williams | Loren@kscable.com
'96 Mazda Miata | Wichita Region SCCA - http://wichitascca.org/
|