Mac, Thanks for the response about the proposed reverse gear change.
And I am sorry to hear about the loss of your reverse gear due to your
shift pattern.
But I also need to reply to your other accusations. This whole issue
seems to have been turned into a C-Mod vs B-Mod argument that should
never have occurred. This entire discussion began because someone,
decided that it would be a good idea if the reverse gear could be
removed (in deference to the GCR) from all mod car transmissions. The
subsequent discussion on the "C-Mod" list concerned what is this all
about and why do we need it (actually the first post on this issue
implied that it was for the C-Mod class). The fact is that it has no
benefit to C-Mod, but due to shift pattern, it appears that it is of
benefit to other classes. B-Mod cars and class were only brought up
because B-Mod drivers responding on the C-Mod list indicated that this
proposal would benefit them. Unfortunately, Several B-Mod drivers feel
that Any C-Mod objection to this proposal (for C-Mod cars only) is
unfounded and an attack against them. I don't understand why and it has
degraded to personnel insults. I thought we were all above that.
Anyway, the MAC (mod advisory committee) has recommended that the
proposal be revised to exclude C-Mod. All is good in the world. Now if
I can just find a way to convince B-Mod (many for them are/were my
friends) that C-Mod and myself never wanted to affect B-Mod rule changes
only C-Mod changes.
Again thank you for your email. I know, that you know me well enough to
be open minded enough to listen to all sides and give considerations.
That I would never intentionally degrade or berate anyone. And lastly
you probably do not know that my to the point, blunt style of discussing
works OK when talking face to face but might come across a little strong
on paper. I need to work on that.
Hope to see you in a few weeks in Peoria.
Charlie Mathews
Jane and Mac McDougal wrote:
> Having received a copy of you E-mail of 4/13/01 concerning the
> proposed rule change to allow modified classes to run without reverse
> gear, I thought it important that I got my two cents worth in. I have
> no idea who requested the Events Board consider the rule change, but I
> can say, unequivocally, that I am nowhere near smart enough to figure
> out how I could get more speed out of my car by removing the reverse
> idler. Further, I am approximately $1,600.00 lighter in the wallet
> because the Swift's first gear is in such a position that it is not
> only possible, but highly probable that a missed shift will cause very
> expensive damage to the gear box. I have done it, not once, but twice.
> Once in Danville, Illinois and the other in Peoria. If you would like
> specific dates it will require a little research. Certainly I can go
> to the expense and effort to have a lockout made for reverse, but that
> seems rather counterproductive and expensive since all that is
> necessary is an exception to the rules that allow for the removal of
> the idler. I didn't realize that C-mod was full of schemers and
> cheaters, and if this is the case I guess the rule change could only
> affect B-mod where the class is populated by gentlemen. IMHO cheaters
> will, presumably, continue to cheat, but I will continue to support
> the rule change. Mac
///
/// autox-cm@autox.team.net mailing list
///
|