Charlie:
I may be one of the few BM competitors that could care less (the Ralt is a
4sp.). When I was running my Brabham BT35, I couldn't even use first gear
because I kept hitting reverse trying to get to second. I never broke
anything, but never used first either. I can't think of any way leaving out
the reverse idler can possibly be used as an advantage, but then I may not be
very imaginative.
I copied Mac on this e-mail because I think he is one of those that has a
potential for VERY expensive repairs (reverse/first/second is almost
$1,000.00). Can't remember if Colan's new case (LOTS of money) was caused by
reverse or not.
I have to admit, I think that this "GCR Legal" thing is getting a little
carried away. I can change uprights, a-arms, shocks, trans. gears, suspension
settings, engine build specs, and many other items for Solo II. All of these
make the car un-roadraceable but they are OK. But the GCR requirements are
sacrosanct? Sorry, I still don't understand!
Greg
PS: If I had a 5 speed, I would leave reverse out and just not tell anybody.
Would be a BS protest, IMHO. :-)
At 12:48 PM 4/13/01 -0500, Charlie Mathews wrote:
>On the surface, this would seem to be a change with no benefit except to save
>transmissions. Say what you want, but I suspect that whoever proposed this
spent
>a considerable amount of time coming up with a way to get more speed out of
their
>car, that will cause all of us to spend money to keep. Let me explain, I
have
>never heard of anyone who destroyed a transmission by shifting into
reverse as
>has been described on this list. If there are examples, let me know, and
please
>provide names. My contention is that you don't fix something that isn't
broke;
>and while there is a possibility of damage, there is are no actual examples
>therefore no downside cost. (If we want to keep people from damaging their
cars
>beyond their ability to fix them, we better write a rule that prohibits them
from
>competing.)
>
>So, with the above said, then there is no reason to make this change, unless,
>there is a competitive advantage. No one does something for nothing.
Therefore,
>I suggest, as others have, that this revision to the rules not be implemented
for
>CMod. I won't speak for other classes, but IMHO all GCR legal classes should
>follow suit.
>
>I'm sure there is a good story why this was proposed, maybe one day we will
get
>to here it.
>
>Charlie Mathews
///
/// autox-cm@autox.team.net mailing list
///
|