Rocky Entriken wrote:
With the happy realization that Steve and I really are not in huge
disagreement overall...
<<
Except on this point. ;)
>>
And I'm not. <sigh> again we must disagree. :-)
I am not because there is no problem needing this solution. Cantilever tires
are a fact of life now in smallbore Production and Prepared cars and that
fact is not likely to change anytime soon. Bollinger's now-dormant proposal
is therefore a solution seeking a problem. Bollinger was reacting to reports
cantilevers might go away, and he wanted to maintain the same tire patch
(also unnecessary, but another argument entirely). Fact is, tiremakers are
still making cantilevers and are expected to continue to do so. One reason
they were said to maybe be going away was that the tiremakers could no
longer get the trick material from DuPont that was used in the carcass.
Alternate materials have been found and is being used. Hoosier's tire
actually has improved some because of it.
<<
And we were doing so well too ;)
I am well aware of the material issues regarding construction of cantilever
slicks. Before there was ever an issue, I thought the rule should be
changed. That cantilever slicks exist is proof that the wheel width rule
is poor rulesmaking. And its poor rulesmaking be it club racing or solo.
The cantilever makes a mockery of the wheel width limitation. The Comp
Board should have handled the problem when the first cantilever appeared.
Instead, they sat there with their heads in the sand and let it become the
standard.
Un-doing the issue is met with the same resistance that un-doing wheels and
intakes in SP are. "I don't want to be forced to buy new wheels" is your
primary objection. First of all, that is not the case. A rule allowing a
maximum width for the "assembly" would leave your current wheels legal. So
you would not be "forced" to change. However, you would have a "choice" to
change. There could also be "competition adjustments" that could be used to
keep the non-cantilever equipped cars from having a significant advantage.
Say, a 50 or 100 lb weight penalty for use of a wider wheel.
Also, I would like to know why the Comp Board is so afraid of wheel width
anyway. Unrestricted wheel width, as in SP, will quickly find the practical
limits before the trade offs become too great. Then there would be no
reason to try and engineer around the rule. (I know this is a radical idea
and there will be many that will faint dead away at the mere suggestion of
un-restricted wheels in prepared, but hey, I am not known for being subtle).
While Steve Bollinger's proposal may not be a perfect solution, it goes a
long way toward a more reasonable wheel width rule.
To be sure, it is not my intent to try and re-order a category that I don't
even compete in. This is not a letter to the SEB after all, just some
harmless speculating. I enjoy competing in SP because I think SP is a very
interesting category and the cars are fun to drive. I have also driven P
cars and enjoyed them as well. I have also contemplated building a P car
from time to time, but the two things that have always stopped me were the
fuel injection and wheel width limitations. I didn't want to have to use a
carburetor and I hate driving on cantilever slicks. Now that the fuel
injection issue has finally been addressed, perhaps I may re-consider.
Steve Hoelscher
#27 DSP
/// autox@autox.team.net mailing list
///
/// To unsubscribe send a plain text message to majordomo@autox.team.net
/// with nothing in it but
///
/// unsubscribe autox
///
/// or try http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
///
|