dg50@chrysler.com wrote:
>
> > 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.
You know that I'm not advocating that. I'm just throwing that out as an
example of alternate wording. I personally feel that once you allow a
car (or owner) certain mods etc.. You should not then come back later
and say that they can't do that.
> 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!"
I don't think that this addition to the rule was specifically targeting
the DSM cars. Are they the only cars such effected by this rule? That
may be so. But that does not mean that the SEB was targeting the DSM.
They just happened to be in the line of fire. Does that make sense? The
way I see the rule change is that it was directed at controlling the
possibilities of runaway killer cars -in the future-. Turbo cars are
becoming more common, and the technology is improving. If the SEB
doesn't keep on top of it in some way, then at some point down the road,
turbo cars may very well dominate the scene. I don't think that the SEB
is looking to eliminate turbo cars (just IMHO), but I do see them as
trying to control the parity level in the light of rapidly advancing
technology, both market and aftermarket.
> >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.
I agree. But I also see why the SEB is trying to do something now. Part
of the problem that I see, as an uninvolved party, is that the rules
need to be simple enough for Solo2, and yet should be sophisticated
enough to handle the advancing technology as well. We're not there yet,
hopefully strides can be made to make everybody happy. Obviously that
hasn't happened yet.
-Josh2
--
Joshua Hadler '74 914 2.0 CSP/Bi - Hooligan Racing #29 - CONIVOR
'87 Quantum Syncro - aka stealth quattro
jhadler@rmi.net
http://rainbow.rmi.net/~jhadler/
|