Charlie, the proposed rule was not just for CM.
I understand what you are saying but I don't think I understand why. There
is no performance advantage to removal of reverse and it is easily replaced
in less than 30 minutes if so desired. You have to change gears to go road
racing anyway. After all, none of our cars are truly "road race ready"
without a fair amount of work. Maybe you should be required to run a first
gear capable of 60 mph since that is more "road race appropriate".
The "reverse required" rule is in place for road racing to promote safety
since it allows a better chance of getting out of the way of on-coming
traffic. This does not apply to Solo II. So I still don't see the point.
It is certainly much easier to remove the idler than it is to modify the
linkage. In other words, what can it possibly hurt? (Polar moment?
Front/rear weight bias? Rotating mass?)
Thanks for still listenin.
Greg
Charlie wrote:
>
>"You got a good point except that FFs can not use the 5 speed. We are
limited to
the 4 speed and the problem you mention is not a problem. Oh I guess you
could
try and get reverse when down shifting into first. I have personally tried it
and while the consequences would be severe, the shifter will not easily go
into
gear without a lot of noise. Even I was able to figure it out.
>
>Charlie Mathews"
>
and Mark also responded:
>
>"I'd think you could reduce your risk by altering the linkage,
requiring some sort of additional motion to get into reverse. Put
a gate in the way, so you have to move a lever or pull a collar
or something. Or assuming the selector at the back of the gearbox
works similarly to the Mk9, couldn't you modify the R-1 selector
shaft such that it couldn't be pushed in, but could still be pulled
out?
>
>In other words, I'd be more willing to consider an allowance for
"disabling the selection of reverse gear" than one that says
"reverse is not required".
>
>Mark"
///
/// autox-cm@autox.team.net mailing list
///
|