> Let me start by saying that in general, I think you're way off base in
> most of what you're proposing.
That's fine.
> Or more particularly, you're not looking at the *future* big picture.
...or perhaps we have different opinions on what the big picture looks like.
> Who's the judge of when "it was on par with the top dogs in his class"?
Well, it would have to be a competitor, who felt that he was operating under
some handicap, who would then have to be able to make the case that 1) The
handicap existed 2) that it was car, not driver, based and 3) The proposed
remedy would serve to equalize the problem, not create a new one. The SEB would
have to feel that the case had merit, and then put it into the rulebook after
suitable review.
> 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.
Per-car allowences in the rulebook, yes. How you feel the individual competitor
today has the ability to level the playing field is not clear to me.
> There are many valid arguments against those things other than the
> slippery slope,
Like?
> Remember, *every car* has an achilles heel, and if we try to correct all
> of them, the rulebook will get a lot fatter,
So? (Trying to be brief, not snippy)
> the SEB will be a lot busier
Again, so? There are ways to lighten the burden on the SEB if required.
> the competitor will have a harder time knowing what's legal and
> what's not in order to formulate a protest
Why? It'd all be there in the rulebook in black and white.
> cars will have to be reclassed even more often as their potential changes
More often? I'd think it would be _less_ often. With time, classes would tend to
get more equal.
> and in many cases, Joe-off-the-street will have to do even more work to his
car to > be competitive
At least now he gets to be competitive. Take DS. You'd allow Neons their motor
mounts, and that's it. Any slower car gets extra stuff to pull them up equal to
the Neon, but no higher. Neons got cheaper to run (assuming they break motor
mounts on a regular basis) and while "lesser" cars may cost more, at least they
now get the chance to win.
> 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.
I tend to agree that the current state isn't _broken_. It's not *wrong*, but
it's not perfect either.
Perhaps we could try a limited experiment with some commonly requested and
relativly low-impact changes, like Neon motor mounts, Porche timing chain
adjusters, and maybe Scotty's wheels - and see what happens.
> 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.
NOTHING is EVER trouble-free. :)
>> 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?
How so? How does a VW Corrado owner contend with Talons and Type Rs in GS? To
slow for GS, too fast for HS....
> 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?
What if there's no place else to go? Both cars have 5HP imitation
Briggs&Stratton lawmower engines, and there's no slower class than M Stock. Or
maybe there's N Stock, for D-cell battery powered Lego cars where the Yugo is a
complete overdog.
...or maybe, there's less classes... ...but now I'm really through the looking
glass. :)
Think it's time to start wrapping this thread up. I think I've said all I can
without getting repetitive.
DG
|