"Isley, Jason C." wrote:
> Buddy, for some reason you are still missing the root of this
> discussion. The rule is outdated.
I'll agree that the rule is outdated. I'll agree that philosophically,
either bar or no bar would be preferable to front bar only.
But so what? Yes, it's outdated. Does that mean it has to be fixed?
What, actually, is broken about it? Why is it a problem?
The only answer I've seen to that so far comes from Loren Williams:
> C. I don't think it's an issue of "fairness" or "competitiveness"
> because if the swaybar rule is changed, cars will have to be reclassed
> accordingly. It's more a matter of allowing FWD drivers a
> modification that will mean as much to them as the same modification
> does to RWD drivers. It's about making a grocery-getter FWD car more
> FUN to drive in an autocross without having to leave stock class.
The first part of this paragraph (allowing FWD drivers ...) makes the
usual mistake of thinking that just because some cars are allowed some
modification that it's only fair if everyone else can too. For example,
some Stock cars can get negative camber, and others can't. Some have
adjustable spring perches, others don't. Granted, this one's in the
rulebook while my examples are from the manufacturers, but I'm sure
there's better examples. That's all part of the equation, and cars are
classed according to potential. So I'm not swayed by that argument.
The last sentence (making the car more fun to drive) is somewhat more
persuasive. Are we losing members because they can't do this? My
only relevant experience is in Volkswagens, and I would have changed
the front bar on that car anyway even if I would have been allowed to
change the rear.
Personally, I'd like to see Stock Category go to Stock wheels and no
spacers, but it's not broken enough to be worth fixing.
By the way, C Modified has none of these sorts of issues. It's a deep,
popular, relatively inexpensive class with great people and really fun
cars -- and none of this crazy rules banter. Come join us.
Mark
|