Howdy,
On Mon, 9 Jul 2001, Kevin Stevens wrote:
> I'm going to revert to my "social engineering sucks" stance. If you don't
> want to allow shocks, find a way to say so, rather than engaging in
> dubious dodges to discourage people from doing something legal.
Perhaps, since you don't like the method of saying so, you can come up
with a better one?
:-)
Claiming rules are hardly "dubious dodges". They've worked and currently
work in many organizations that are facing the exact same desire to allow
modification but to keep costs under control... Obviously its not the
only way, but I submit it beats the hell outta writing more loopholes.
I'm not sure I agree with the underlying premise that we wanna limit
shock/struts on Stock class cars, but if we do a claiming system at least
preserves some of the good parts of the current allowances while
preventing some of the extravegant costs.
Mark
|