autox-cm
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Proposed Rules Change

To: cmathews@theramp.net, autox-cm@autox.team.net
Subject: Re: Proposed Rules Change
From: VDieman@aol.com
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 15:45:08 EDT
In a message dated 4/13/01 1:49:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
cmathews@theramp.net writes:

<< On the surface, this would seem to be a change with no benefit except to 
save
 transmissions.  Say what you want, but I suspect that whoever proposed this 
spent
 a considerable amount of time coming up with a way to get more speed out of 
their
 car, that will cause all of us to spend money to keep.  Let me explain, I 
have
 never heard of anyone who destroyed a transmission by shifting into reverse 
as
 has been described on this list.  If there are examples, let me know, and 
please
 provide names.  My contention is that you don't fix something that isn't 
broke;
 and while there is a possibility of damage, there is are no actual examples
 therefore no downside cost.  (If we want to keep people from damaging their 
cars
 beyond their ability to fix them, we better write a rule that prohibits them 
from
 competing.)
 
 So, with the above said, then there is no reason to make this change, unless,
 there is a competitive advantage.  No one does something for nothing.  
Therefore,
 I suggest, as others have, that this revision to the rules not be 
implemented for
 CMod.  I won't speak for other classes, but IMHO all GCR legal classes should
 follow suit.
 
 I'm sure there is a good story why this was proposed, maybe one day we will 
get
 to here it.
  >>


I would direct any inquiries for specific examples to Mr. Colan Arnold.  SEB 
Chairman.  He can give you firsthand accounts.

Bill Engle Jr

///
///  autox-cm@autox.team.net mailing list
///


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>