Granted, I'm an outsider to Stock, but why are some afraid of the
"stock-appearing" shocks rule's enforcement, when Stock doesn't seem to
have had trouble with a "stock-appearing" engine ruleset?
I mean, shocks aren't the only thing that the very same suspicions could be
applied to on a Stock car.
I could get rear anti-sway bars made to OEM sizes, but not stiffness.
Springs could be done the same way. I could do all sorts of things inside
the motor that would require a teardown, and machine-shop-type equipment to
check. Has anyone had a tranny torn down to count the teeth on the primary
gears?
Not tryin' to ruffle anyone's feathers, but there are plenty of ways to
cheat in Stock, given enough effort, and I fail to see what makes shocks
any different.
Mike
CP 58
At 06:48 PM 1/12/2002 Saturday, you wrote:
>Charlie,
>
>I have a serious concern that Byron's proposal is not being taken very
>seriously by some. I strongly believe that we should be endeavoring to
>control the "extra" costs in our grassroots level AutoX classes.
>
>Your message below indicates that if we require stock shocks, we will cheat
>with "stock appearing" shocks. Now if I were to accept your premise, I
>could further infer that the cheating would not be limited to shocks; then I
>would have to quickly conclude that Stock Classes cannot work. I truly hope
>you didn't mean to imply that.
>
>You previously indicated you had arguments against? stock shocks in Stock
>Classes. Please present them clearly, because so far, some of us have
>resisted spending the $3,000-$x,000 extra it would have taken to have a
>chance to move up from 3rd to 1st place. Do you believe that we need to?
>Inquiring minds want to know.
>
>BK
/// unsubscribe/change address requests to majordomo@autox.team.net or try
/// http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo
/// Partial archives at http://www.team.net/archive
|