>Aha! Why must all changes be catagory wide?
Because what that would entail would be a complete rewrite of at least
half of a 294 page book that has bsically been a work in progress over the
last 29 years. It would also basically junk the structure of what is
arguably a quite successful program.
>> Never ever have there been specific allowances written for an
>> individual stock or street prepared car to overcome some type of
handicap.
>Why not? I'm not being facitious, I'm serious. Why not?
>Has it ever been tried? Been given serious consideration?
There have been discussions on specific car allowances. The reason they
haven't happened is fair implementation is not possible. Where does it
stop? What does it entail? What does it favor?
>> If someone want to volunteer to rewrite the rulebook to class cars based
on
>> all the unknown performance potentials of all those "but its just an
itsy
>> bitsy change/replacement for <insert reason>"
>Well, if (and that's a MIGHTY BIG "if" - absolutly by no means a given)
the
>Membership decided they wanted the ability to do this, then why wouldn't
it be
>the job of the SEB to draw up procedures for submitting an "allowence
request"
>and then reviewing them - and if neccessary, adjusting them?
In a typical year the SEB gets between 300 and 400 member clarification
requests or rule change letters. With the structure the way it is now.
What do you think that "allowance request" would add to that number of
letters? How about the re-classing of cars after all these "adjustments"?
Who is going to do it? The day job would certainly suffer........Also, I
ask again, how will competition adjustments be handled when someone manages
to tie these new loopholes together into a killer combo. Do we play like
NASCAR and change things weekly? Not really too stable or member friendly
if you ask me.
>Yes, it might be a lot of work, but is "it'd be a lot of work" really a
good
>enough reason for not doing it, assuming that it's what the Membership
wants?
See above. It would require quite a paid staff to administer a structure
like you propose. I sure as hell wouldn't be a volunteer and attempt to
do it. You really want a SOLO CZAR? And judging by the response on this
thread today, I don't quite get the feeling all are buying in :-)
>> 2) Consider the importance of rules stability. Hypothetically, a 1"
>> reduction in wheel diameter for a stock C5 Corvette would by precedent
have
>> to be made stock category wide.
>THAT, _right there_ is what I think needs to be looked at. Why should this
be
>so? Why not allow specific changes for specific cars?
There are 18" competition tires IN STOCK around the country. Maybe not in
the right brand for some people, or in what is percieved to be the best
compound, but to state anything otherwise is misleading. For the most
part, conceputually similiar cars are classed together. What if a
competitor chooses not to install the allowance. Then what? Put the car
into multiple classes? The rule book would have to be an interactive data
base on a CD to cover all the permutations.
>However, I'm sure that you agree with me when I say "If the Membership
decides
>they want something, then the SEB must do it." Right?
>And I'm not for a second claiming that the Membership has been shown to
want
>what I'm kinda proposing here. It sure sounds like it sometimes, but
that's
>hardly proof.
Each proposal rises and falls on its own merits, downfalls and respective
pros and cons of each. I don't see there being any "global" changes to
rules structure at any time in the near future.
>Now you probably did me a favour, 'cause as written it was a pretty dumb
idea.
>But it bothered me at the time that I never got a chance to hear the
arguments
>against it.
If you wanted a synopsis of what transpired in the discussion, I'm sure any
one of the SEB members involved would have provided the gist of the
discussion to you. We are not; to coin a new acronym: Secretive Empire
Builders.
>Lemme ask you this, too: If (someone else's - mine sucked) "dumb idea"
keeps
>coming up over and over, is it still a dumb idea? At what point does
"people
>want it" take precidence over SEB opinion?
Like I and others said previously, the SEB reports to the BOD. If it is
something that the SEB is not responsive to, in concert with the advisory
committees, then the BOD is an option to contact. But, I think I can say
they are fully supportive and cognizant the of the rules stability that
currently exists.
Rob Foley
|