MBD96@aol.com wrote:
> If you choose to take that general statement about some of the opinions
> voiced by many (about special treatment for AM) in this long thread as
> directed at you, I can't stop you.
It probably had something to do with the quote of my entire message in
this thread at the end of your post. If that was just an autopilot act
on the part of your email client and you didn't REALLY mean to reply to
the post you were quoting, might I suggest that, in the future, you
consider selecting and deleting the autoquoted text? That would make you
intent much clearer.
> Gee Jay, when AP was last "restructured or consolidated", as you call it, a
> few years ago what happened? What happened was FP was "eliminated".
Well, since it was AP that was undersubscribed, but FP that was
"eliminated," mightn't one logically feel that FP was being unfairly
punished for AP's problems? And mightn't there be a similar possiblity
if AM were "consolidated"?
> The
> same rules applying to classes today applied then. Now the AP cars DID have
> a place to go without significant rule changes. AM wouldn't be so easy.
My point exactly. When the fastest of all classes is subject to
revision, what is the fate of all the cars that were built for that
class? If you give 'em another place to run, they'll just create a new
version of AM with another name.
> The
> purpose of the 'consolidation and restructuring rule' is to eliminate
> undersubscribed classes as defined by their participation levels at the Solo
> II Nationals.
No argument on that point. The wording, however, seems to rule out total
exclusion of a previously legal car from the sport. Without that option,
how do you deal with an undersubscribed AM?
Jay
|