Mark Andy wrote:
>Bullsh*t.
Not at all.
>I saw a _lot_ of the public discussions on this. For every one
person who
>used a non-"FrankenCivic" example there were 20 who did.
You're conveniently missing the point. The decision about U/B was
based on the fact that competitors were complaining about it, NOT
on the U/B possibilities for a single car. The choice was either
to leave U/B alone (which was my preference) or to eliminate it
entirely. Any intermediate step would have been nothing but an
experiment, and the SEB was not willing to engage in further
experimentation with STS. I was in complete agreement with that
position.
>UD/BD got removed from ST* because an old civic could weigh 30
lbs lighter
>when built using UD/BD than an old civic could weigh without the
>allowance.
No, it got eliminated because a number of competitors objected to
it, and because there was no other viable alternative. The
choices were to leave it alone or eliminate it.
>In the process, lots of normal modifications (final drive
changes,
>junkyard motor swaps, using a chassis brace from another
iteration of
>the model, etc. etc.) got thrown away with the bathwater.
Define "normal." Now, defend your definition against mine, and
against the definitions of every other competitor. You won't get
anywhere with that kind of thinking.
IMHO, U/B was a good fit in STS. But there was no way to modify
it. It had to either stay or go.
>If you like where we ended up... Great!
See above. I preferred the original rules. But I also know that
sh*t happens, and I don't always expect to get my way. I try to
teach my kids the same concepts.
>But let's not have any illusions
>about how we got there.
I suggest that you take your own advice.
Jay
|