Once upon a time was unable to understand why SCCA rules always seemed to be so
unnecessarily vague and complicated. The longer I am around the easier it is to
understand. Why is it that changes with a purpose are always opposed by people
who
do not understand, have no knowledge of, or are not affected by the change or
the
reason for its purpose.
Of all the classes with racing transmissions CM would seem to be the only class
that
would be unaffected. Cars with 5-speeds in AM, BM, DM, & EM are the cars
affected by
the proposal because of the shift pattern. The first to second shift is made
at the
risk of selecting reverse, with the result being very expensive damage to the
transmission. Removing a 3 oz idler eliminates this risk. Anyone that thinks
3 oz
is of performance significance in Solo is.......... Why oppose a rule change
that is
of benefit to people in another class, when it docent even effect your class?
Minding your own business comes to mind.
Yes, this change would give me the option of removing the idler in my FT200
equipped
BM, but I do not plan on it. Sometimes backing up is good. I know that from
experience. If someone else in BM wants to reduce their chance of damage to an
expensive transmission I have no problem, I will not be at competitive
disadvantage
because they remove the reverse idler. My driving seems to do that frequently
enough
without any outside assistance.
Before we reject or accept a proposal out of hand we owe it to our fellow
competitors
in Solo to find out the pros and cons first.
Just one man's opinion.
Bill Engle, Sr.
Charlie Mathews wrote:
> 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
>......
///
/// autox-cm@autox.team.net mailing list
///
|