Charles Cox wrote:
>But it doesn't say vehicle "without driver" as indicated
elsewhere in the
>rule book
Where do the Prepared rules _ever_ reference "with driver?" I
haven't found such a reference.
>Aaron is correct indicating there
>needs to be new language.
Only if you can somehow make yourself believe that the "driver"
is inherently part of the "vehicle." If I were on a PC (have been
once or twice), I wouldn't be buying that one.
>If this has been argued in protest or appeal, the
>rule should be re-written.
I disagree that a rewrite is necessary. If it makes understanding
easier, I wouldn't object to the wording "without driver" being
added, however.
>Clarification is needed if any valid argument can be presented
and his
>argument is valid.
No, it's not. See above. Who in their right mind would claim that
the "driver" is part of the "vehicle?" See Appendix F, fourth
paragraph, for a response to your claim of a "valid argument."
>Ballast is cheap compared to trying to be competitive with 150#
drivers when
>you are up to 100# or more over that...which can be physically
impossible to
>attain for some.
Now you've jumped from asking for a clarification to arguing in
favor of a change. That's kinda sneaky if you ask me.
>Unless you qualify any weight with "as raced", any weight the
car can be,
>with driver, with additional gas, etc., at any time should be
allowed (what
>comprises the "vehicle" and when does it apply?)
Well, if you just finished your last run, and your _vehicle_ is
underweight (you know your weight will be checked in Impound) I'd
say you're illegal. I'll just bet that's the way most folks read
the rules.
>...therefore without that
>qualification, the car can weigh whatever you can get the scales
to read no
>matter what you add to the "vehicle".
Hahahaha. Good one. Try to get that one by Impound without a DSQ.
>If you write (it should be written) that it is to be "as raced
without
>driver" then you have to clarify what comprises the
"driver"...with helmet,
>clothes, etc...
That's nothing but self-serving sophistry. Are you trying to get
me to believe that the driver's clothing is part of the
"vehicle?" I'm not buying that one, either.
>The rules simply aren't written properly.
They may not be, but you're making an incredibly poor case for a
rewrite.
>Cars should be weighed "as raced with driver" like most any
other form of 4
>wheel motorsport...then problem solved.
No. Then lots of much worse new problems created. In Solo II,
they have these things called "two driver cars." If you were to
get your way, verification of correct minimum weights will be
absolutely impossible. In a car with two drivers of different
weights, ballast will need to be changed between runs in order
for each driver to receive the benefit of your concept of
"fairness." Unless EACH car is weighed after EVERY run, it will
be easy, for example, for the lighter of two drivers to run with
the car ballasted for the heavier driver, i.e., underweight. In
Impound, the appropriate ballast is then put in place for each
driver, and noone is the wiser. Which brings up another PITA: two
driver cars will have to be weighed twice, with the requisite
seat/ballast changing being done (yet again) in Impound.
Telle me again: what was the "problem" you want to solve?
>(not to mention a properly leveled
>playing field).
See above.
Jay
/// 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
|