I see your point that in Stock, rather than 9 equal performance levels,
maybe we can create only 8, or 7, or whatever. That makes sense to me,
and I agree, it's not a bad idea.
But it's SO far from what we have now that the effort to get there
would be tremendous -- and given that what we have isn't exactly
wrong, I don't think it's worth the effort.
> Take DS. You'd allow Neons their motor mounts, and that's it. Any
> slower car gets extra stuff to pull them up equal to the Neon, but no
> higher. Neons got cheaper to run (assuming they break motor mounts on
> a regular basis) and while "lesser" cars may cost more, at least they
> now get the chance to win.
It'll be years before you can get even 10 cars equalized in that one
class, never mind the dozens of others.
> What if there's no place else to go? Both cars have 5HP imitation
> Briggs&Stratton lawmower engines, and there's no slower class than M
> Stock. Or maybe there's N Stock, for D-cell battery powered Lego cars
> where the Yugo is a complete overdog.
Okay, so the current system doesn't work for underdogs in the slowest
available class -- but neither does yours.
As for cars that fit between classes, I agree that your idea has
potential. But the effort to get there is monumental, and what we have
basically works for almost everyone. It's good enough. Perfect is the
enemy of the good, and most likely, your approach wouldn't be perfect
either, and someone would come back and propose simpler rules which
affect the entire category, and we'll just move cars around to equalize
performance levels.
Again, I ask: Why? I just don't see that the benefits (more cars can
be competitive in their classes, even with fewer classes) outweigh the
costs (monumental effort, more complicated rules, more difficult
classing procedures, more cost to the newcomer in most cars).
Mark
|