FWIW, I couldn't agree more with Kevin. Any sort of rule that allows one
person to claim the property of another is a disaster waiting to happen (and
it won't wait very long). It is, in other words, a BAD THING. You guys have
got to be joking. I can't believe any sane person could even consider doing
this.
If somebody is breaking the rules, do what we already do -- protest and
disqualify him. Simple and effective. What's wrong with that?
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ba-autox@autox.team.net
[mailto:owner-ba-autox@autox.team.net]On Behalf Of Kevin Stevens
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 13:52
To: Mark J. Andy
Cc: ba-autox@autox.team.net
Subject: Re: Stock Classes (was: Cheap Gas)
On Mon, 9 Jul 2001, Mark J. Andy wrote:
> Howdy,
>
> On Mon, 9 Jul 2001, Kevin Stevens wrote:
> > I'm going to revert to my "social engineering sucks" stance. If you
don't
> > want to allow shocks, find a way to say so, rather than engaging in
> > dubious dodges to discourage people from doing something legal.
>
> Perhaps, since you don't like the method of saying so, you can come up
> with a better one?
Why is the burden on me? I don't have a problem with the current rules.
> Claiming rules are hardly "dubious dodges". They've worked and currently
> work in many organizations that are facing the exact same desire to allow
> modification but to keep costs under control... Obviously its not the
> only way, but I submit it beats the hell outta writing more loopholes.
I'm only familiar with claiming rules in situations where they are
intended to prevent cheating. To clarify my objection, as I understand it
you are not proposing that it be ILLEGAL to run expensive shocks, you're
just trying to restrict it by making it (potentially) more expensive?
Issues:
Philosophic - social engineering sucks. Trying to modify behavior
indirectly usually doesn't work as anticipated, and IMHO lowers the
credibility and ethical bar for everyone. "We're not going to say you
can't, we're just going to make your life miserable in perverse ways if
you do."
Practical - The National championship competitors are presumably not who
you are targeting with this initiative, since they're spending truckloads
of money regardless? You've just made it that much more difficult for
them to do development at local events, and coincidently to offer the rest
of us the benefit of their example. They'll simply go off to skidpads or
non-SCCA events to do their testing, then come to the major events with
their tuned shocks and bite the bullet if someone claims them. I dislike
alienating the most committed and active competitors to benefit the less
committed and active ones.
For the regional hotshoes, how does this work again? A competitor gets to
claim my shocks, ok. How do they get delivered, presumably by the next
event or something? Can't happen then and there, it's totally impossible
at local events. (Time limits on the lot, non-trailered cars, no
alignment provisions...) Who adjudicates that they've been paid for, and
how? Protest committee, I guess. Does everyone now have to keep two sets
of shocks on hand in case one gets claimed? What about two-day events?
OEM Corvette parts can take weeks to arrive. What stops me, or anyone
else, from claiming these hot shocks the next week? Do they just
circulate around the class all season? Do we have people scheming to
pilfer them just before the big events? What happens if more than one
person wants them? How do you prevent me from sabotaging them before I
deliver them? What about the rookie who just showed up for the first
time? Can I get his super-expensive shocks? Oh, you're going to limit it
to just claiming winner's shocks? So now I can run hot shocks, but I have
to sandbag better? No problem...
And for either group, you've just created a gold-plated method for
off-course harrassment of competitors you don't like for whatever reason.
You've just opened a whole entire can of worms, in an effort to suppress
an activity that you haven't even defined as illegal! Who, exactly, is
supposed to be benefiting from this circus? From what I've heard so far,
it's regional wannabees (like myself) with a profound case of shock envy.
I refer you to my previous post about the no-cost method of speeding up
your car - give it to a bona-fide hotshoe to drive.
> I'm not sure I agree with the underlying premise that we wanna limit
> shock/struts on Stock class cars, but if we do a claiming system at least
> preserves some of the good parts of the current allowances while
> preventing some of the extravegant costs.
I'm open to limiting Stock modifications in any way that is moderately
simple to implement. I am adamantly opposed to poorly-written,
unenforceable, or coercive rules.
KeS
|