Solo Events Board and Modified Advisory Committee members,
I am writing to comment on the proposed new sections 16.2.P and
16.3.N, stating "Reverse gear is not required."
I would like to propose moving that allowance into Appendix A
in the definitions for the BM and FM classes, so that CM will not
be included. As C Modified is a GCR class, I feel it's important to
keep the number of exceptions to the GCR to a minimum.
This rule would affect all Sports Racers and Formula Cars equally,
regardless of class. The only reasonable benefit for the
elimination of reverse gear that I've heard comes from Greg
Scharnberg, who wrote to the C Modified mailing list:
The 5 speed cars (MK9, FT200, and Staffs) all
have a problem if they miss a shift. First is
to the left and back and it is fairly easy to
hit reverse on the 3-->2 shift. Assuming you
don't damage the case, and only need the reverse
gears, it can cost over $1,000.00 plus labor.
If there are other compelling reasons, I have not heard them.
This particular problem affects none of the cars in C Modified.
The GCR specifications for the S2000 and FF1600 require reverse and
no more than four forward speeds, so first does not share a gate
with reverse. In the SR/SRF, the gearbox is a sealed unit.
If for some reason it is not acceptable to simply move the new
allowance to Appendix A, then I would propose alternate wording
allowing the *disabling* of reverse gear but not the elimination.
I realize that most competitors would probably just remove the
idler gear from the gearbox, thus rendering the selection of reverse
harmless (though fruitless). However, I fear that this opens the
door for custom smaller, lighter, "better" gearboxes that have no
reverse mechanism at all.
In particular, while the FF, S2, and SR/SRF require an operational
reverse gear in the gearbox, there is no rule requiring that reverse
can be selected through the standard linkage. If one were to modify
the linkage such that reverse gear could not be selected, a tortured
interpretation of the rules might consider that legal. I'd be
willing to accept formalizing that interpretation in 16.2 and 16.3
with wording like:
It is permissible to modify the shift linkage such that
reverse gear cannot be selected.
The advantage to this wording over the proposed wording is that
we're less likely to see custom gearboxes in FF, S2, or SR/SRF.
Again, this is a second choice -- I'd much prefer to see the
allowance in Appendix A, under BM and FM, than in 16.2 and 16.3.
Thank you for your consideration.
Mark Sirota
Philadelphia Region
Member R163168
msirota@isc.upenn.edu
///
/// autox-cm@autox.team.net mailing list
///
|