I think it was George Santayana who said "those who do
not study history are condemned to repeat it." I
decided to study...the following tidbits are buried in
the team.net digest archives.
--The front-bar-only rule has appeared in the Solo II
rule book as far back as 1974. In several years of
posts, I did not find ONE person who knew conclusively
why the rule was written. That includes one or two
SEB members who commented. I'd say calling it
outdated is based on assumptions about why it is
there. Assumptions are often wrong...
--The SEB considered a proposal to remove the
allowance in 1991 along with a bunch of others. It
looks like the whole thing was shouted down, but one
of the few really coherent points made was that either
grandfathering existing cars or reclassing them would
be a logistical nightmare.
--A few regional clubs in years past (e.g. Met Council
in MN) allowed either bar but not both. It worked
fine, but they changed it just to conform to SCCA
rules.
--Someone new brings up the question about every other
year. The arguments are always the same but the
people change.
--I saw precious few people complaining about getting
booted from Stock for changing a rear bar only; it's
almost always for front and rear together. I infer
from that that changing the rule would not help to
retain beginners.
So, what conclusions can be drawn from all this?
Here's my guess:
--the current sway bar rules have failed to bring
Stock class crashing to the ground in 25 years or so;
--changing it probably wouldn't destroy the class
either, but would cause a great wailing and gnashing
of teeth as the classes are restructured;
--ol' George S. had a point there.
Finally, before closing I'm going to take issue with
whoever said, without qualification, "Change is good."
BAH. Roger Smith disproved that by wrecking GM.
Change is good *if and only if* it solves more
problems than it creates. I hope someone shows that
that's the case for sway bars if they're going to the
trouble to write a letter.
Craig Blome
|