Let me start by saying that in general, I think you're way off base in
most of what you're proposing. You're not looking at the big picture,
even though you seem to think you are. Or more particularly, you're not
looking at the *future* big picture.
Note -- I'm replying to three separate messages here, all from this same
thread.
dg50@daimlerchrysler.com wrote:
> It looks to me like a competitor took steps to increase his car's
> performance to where it was on par with the top dogs in his class,
> and then stopped there.
Who's the judge of when "it was on par with the top dogs in his class"?
Seems to me that's what the rulebook is for.
> ... I also believe that the rules we have today do not provide enough
> leeway for competitors with uncompetitive cars to make those cars
> competitive.
I'm guessing that when you say this, you're saying that you think
per-car allowances should be made in the rulebook, rather than leaving
it up to the individual competitor to determine when his playing field
is level. I'll proceed under that assumption. If I'm wrong, please
correct me.
> Can anyone provide an argument against:
>
> - Porche timing chain adjusters
> - Neon motor mounts
> - 17" wheels for C5 Corvettes
> - F-body subframe connectors
> - F-body aftermarket rear diffs (using stock gear ratios)
>
> _besides_ the "slippery slope / Pandora's Box" argument?
> Well, you DON'T have to make (say) subframe connectors, or timing
> chain adjusters, or whatever, universally applicable. Limit them to
> the cars with the problems, and the "slippery slope" argument goes
> away.
There are many valid arguments against those things other than the
slippery slope, but the slippery slope is a strong argument anyway.
The problem is, you don't seem to understand the argument. It's not
only that rules currently have to apply to an entire category rather
than a single car. It's also that instituting per-car rules is a never-
ending agenda.
Remember, *every car* has an achilles heel, and if we try to correct all
of them, the rulebook will get a lot fatter, the SEB will be a lot
busier, the competitor will have a harder time knowing what's legal and
what's not in order to formulate a protest, cars will have to be
reclassed even more often as their potential changes, and in many cases,
Joe-off-the-street will have to do even more work to his car to be
competitive (although he may have done that work anyway just to be
reliable).
I'm sorry you don't buy the slippery slope argument, but the fact that
you don't buy it doesn't mean that it's not a logical argument.
> "We cannot allow individual modifications to invidual car types
> because it would be too much work to administer" doesn't hold water.
> If it would be too much work under the current SEB structure, and the
> Members want it, then the SEB _must_ be changed (somehow) to comply
> with the Member's wishes.
> ...
> Is what we have now "the right thing to do"? If not, what is?
Maybe it is the Right Thing, maybe it isn't. Per-car modifications are
one possible way. But it's a very different way, and the way we do it
now isn't exactly *wrong*. It isn't broken, and so it doesn't need to
be fixed.
Or are you claiming that doing it the other way would be completely
problem-free? I think you'll have a hard time convincing us of that.
> Why not? Why should everybody be able to compete with the car of
> his/her choice and have an equal chance at winning as everyone else in
> the class?
Within the current system, they do. Am I simply missing your point?
> I see it this way: Each class has a "reference car", a car who's
> performance when fully built to the extent of the rules, defines the
> class. Any car that is in the same class should be allowed whatever it
> takes to bring its performance level up to that of the reference car.
> (but no higher) If a given car has a modification that does not
> increase its performance above that of the reference car, then that
> modification should be allowed, IMHO.
Okay, now we're back to that first section. Who's going to decide if
that modification brings the car up to that level, or beyond?
If you're so sold on a completely new classing system with per-car
modifications within classes, rather than simply moving cars between
classes to equalize potential, then I propose that you start a new
motorsports sanctioning body rather than muck up the perfectly good
system we've got now.
> The vast majority of the membership doesn't care. The Skoda guys might
> even be opposed (suprise!) to the projected evening out of the class -
> they kinda like having their unfair advantage.
It's not an unfair advantage! If Yugos came with 3" wide wheels, so be
it. Maybe they just shouldn't be in the same class as the Skoda. Why
is that not a valid solution?
To sum up: The current system works pretty well. It isn't perfect. We
*do* have solutions for the "problems" you cite, and remain completely
unpersuaded that we need a complete upheaval of the rules as you
propose.
Mark
|