autox
[Top] [All Lists]

DSM Update/Backdate was: Turbo guys get screwed again

To: "'dg50@chrysler.com'" <dg50@chrysler.com>,
Subject: DSM Update/Backdate was: Turbo guys get screwed again
From: "Chan, Albert (GEP)" <Albert.Chan@gepex.ge.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 14:00:28 -0400
Okay Dennis. I've been an interested and amused lurker on this thread, until
now.

PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTION - Don't get caught up on what you have done or not done
with regards to update/backdate - Why should the DSMs be allowed to
update/backdate across the different body styles? Do you propose that when the
new Eclipse comes out later this summer that you can update/backdate to that
as well?

Otherwise, perhaps F-Body and Mustang owners should petition that they can
update and backdate across the different generations. Just think about the
potential of a third-gen or fourth gen F-Body with a 3.70 rear gear and a LS1
engine!


Al Chan

> ----------
> From:         dg50@chrysler.com[SMTP:dg50@chrysler.com]
> Sent:         Thursday, June 17, 1999 1:36 PM
> To:   Joshua Hadler
> Cc:   autox@autox.team.net
> Subject:      Re: Turbo guys get screwed again
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > But change the way the cars are listed. Right now the DSMs are listed as
> > a single line entry. Why not break up the listings so that 1st and 2nd
> > gen DSMs are listed on different lines? That achieves the same results.
> 
> Oh, sure. Take away EVERYTHING ELSE I (and other DSM owners) may have
> updated or
> backdated too.
> 
> The prevailing attitude may be that the DSMs are new on the scene, but that
> is
> NOT the case. These cars have been around for a while, and their owners have
> been happily modifying, updating, and backdating - LEGALLY - for at least 4
> years. And now you want to tell these guys "Whoops! Sorry! Illegal now!"
> because
> a couple of people are suddenly doing OK - not "dominating" or "winning",
> but at
> least not stuck in the back?
> 
> There's a message to send to club members "Do as well as you can, but don't
> start winning in a different car than was has in the past, or we'll take it
> away
> from you!"
> 
> >Ideas? Anyone?
> 
> Yes, a very simple one. LEAVE THE RULES ALONE, AS THEY EXIST TODAY. If the
> SEB
> is _really_ that worried about an interpretation of the current rules
> allowing
> turbos to be added to non-turbocharged cars, then WRITE A RULE THAT
> EXPLICITLY
> FORBIDS PUTTING TURBOS ON ENGINES THAT WERE NOT AVAILABLE WITH FACTORY
> TURBOS.
> 
> This does not have to be difficult, or to inconvience anyone in any way.
> Nobody
> _has_ to get screwed.
> 
> DG
> 
> 

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>