On Thu, 20 Jul 2000 21:51:14 -0500 "Jay Mitchell"
<jemitchell@compuserve.com> writes:
> 1. What happpens when a poor kid who's got lots of talent but had to
> learn to play his sport on the street plays tennis or soccer or
> basketball or almost any other sport against a kid with equal
> talent, but
> whose parents had enough money to send him to camps, buy him the
> best
> shoes, take him to practices, pay for personal trainers, tutors,
> etc.? Is
> the Olympic team they're both trying out for obligated to level the
> playing field by providing additional training for the poor kid, or
> are
> they just gonna go with the one who has the best chance of winning?
Okay, you are straying from the issue. Your analogy fits in the scenario
of one driver starting in a kart from age 6, taking driving schools
repeatedly while growing up, obtaining an SCCA licence at 16 and then
moving into autocross, where he will clearly be dominant because of his
lifetime of experience as opposed to someone like me who was not raised
on a race track. My analogy was of two _equal_ drivers, in different
versions of the same car.
Let me make it simple. Are _you_ going to be faster in your ASP Lotus or
in a bone stock version of the same car? Why? Would _you_ be faster in
a showroom Honda Civic or one which you had developed to the extent of
the "stock" rules?
There are many of us who enjoy the sport, who are not just going to get
our feelings hurt and leave , just because we don't have the cash to play
with the big boys. Many of us can barely afford the car we have bought
plus regular maintenance and insurance, much less extensive testing,
developement and modification. Most of us will race anyway, but there
are those who will be lost because of a perception that "I will naver be
able to be competitive. I have a wife and a family and a mortgage and
I'm already working two jobs to afford what I have." Do those people
deserve to be sneered at and told that they don't deserve your concern?
> 2. Is life inherently fair?
The S2R, last I checked, was not intended to be a manual for life. As
the rulebook for a competitive organization, it should, to the highest
abilities of the drafters, be as equitable as possible to the highest %
of prospective competitors. "Fair" is what it is there for. By
comparing our rulebook to the vagaries of life, you are doing a
monumental disservice to those whom you and I have charged with
maintaining the rulebook.
FWIW, I am looking into a cheap car to run in a stock class for a while
so I can concentrate on driving, rather than developing a car. I will
not be preparing it beyond simple adjustments and any parts I replace
will be with typical aftermarket equipment. I hope to find out how close
to competitive I can get in a "real" stock car, but I am not going to try
to take it all the way. The reason is that I refuse to spend the value
of the car twice just to be competitive when I know that in a few (max of
3?) years the car will be obsolete. I am actually surprised there are so
many people out there who do exactly that. Makes no sense to me.
Jon FP 73
|