dg50@daimlerchrysler.com wrote:
>> This is an entirely reasonable suggestion, but it contains a serious problem:
>> the possible Balkanization of various Regional rulebooks.
> I fail to understand your reference.
If each region defines its own special allowences per class, then there is a
high probability that there will exist differences in what is/is not allowed in
each region's implementation of that class.
Region A allows car X in class QS to have wider wheels, but same
diameter/offset. Region B, same car, same class requires same width, but may be
any diameter. Region C requires "National" rules etc.
Under such a scenario, competing in multiple Regions requires a different set of
equipment - or a different car - to compete in the same "QS" class. This isn't
good, IMHO.
>> I think it's possible to want to win without turning into a "win at all
costs"
>> maniac. Winning is fun. Being _able_ to win, but just missing - that's fun
too.
>> Showing up and being faced with _no chance at all_ to win, no matter how well
>> you drive - is that fun? Knowing that you have to baby the car and can't
drive
>> full out because you'll certainly break that weak part you're not allowed to
>> replace - is that fun?
> I'm sorry but this is the I class arguement and I do not buy it.
Why not? Why should everybody be able to compete with the car of his/her choice
and have an equal chance at winning as everyone else in the class?
> You can write any secnario you want but if there is a
> performance advantage then this is not im my opionion
> a weenie protest.
OK, that depends very heavily on what you consider a "performance advantage"
If "performance advantage" means "performance in excess of the class norm" then
I agree with you - nobody should be able to gain an unfair advantage over the
other competitors, and an illegal modification to that end is cheating, pure and
simple.
If, however, "performance advantage" means "performance in excess of what the
car was cabable of before" - without reference to the rest of the class'
performance - then I disagree, at least in spirit.
I see it this way: Each class has a "reference car", a car who's performance
when fully built to the extent of the rules, defines the class. Any car that is
in the same class should be allowed whatever it takes to bring its performance
level up to that of the reference car. (but no higher) If a given car has a
modification that does not increase its performance above that of the reference
car, then that modification should be allowed, IMHO.
> The point I do not agree with is that because a
> group of people agree they want a change and do
> not get the change means that all of the membership or
> even a majority of the membeship wants the same thing.
True... but is a majority always required?
Let's say that uhhh... Yugo drivers are tired of being trashed by uhh... Skoda
drivers (trying hard to pick makes that there aren't real fights about :( ) in M
Stock, because the Skoda drivers can run 195 75R13 tires, and the biggest tire
you can fit on a Yugo is a 135 80R13 because of the stock wheel width. In terms
of power to weight, balance, whatever the cars are very similar, but the tire
width restriction means that the Yugo guys can't compete. They want the ability
to run a wider wheel/tire combo.
The vast majority of the membership doesn't care. The Skoda guys might even be
opposed (suprise!) to the projected evening out of the class - they kinda like
having their unfair advantage. But would it be wrong for the SEB to assess the
proposal, make a decision on if the tire allowence would give the Yugos an
unfair advantage, and if not, give them the allowence?
Under the current rules, the argument against this is that it opens up cans of
worms for other classes. So what? How can parity within classes be bad?
> I really hate the comments that say the SEB is not
> doing the job because some idea is not acted on.
I have not said anything of the sort, at least, I never meant to give the
impression that the SEB wasn't doing their job - far from it.
DG
|