> Okay Dennis. I've been an interested and amused lurker on this thread, until
> now.
Always happy to entertain.... ;)
> 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?
Well, even from a purely philosophical viewpoint, I don't think you can separate
history from theory when it comes to update/backdate. No matter what one's
opinion is on "are DSMs one generation or two" the fact is that the rule has
been on the books for a while (4 years), that Denver has explicitly sanctioned
the modifications, and that a population of club members are deeply affected by
the change.
If it could be determined that DSMs are overdogs in ESP, the correct action
would be reclassification, not retroactive hamstringing. This is a club, not a
sanctioning body. We don't have Big Business behind us to eat the costs of major
rules changes (like active suspension in F1)
I _personally_ feel that the differences between "generations" of DSMs, are much
smaller than F-Body or Mustang genrations, but I admit that there's a big grey
area here, and I can certainly see how a Camarobird or Mustang owner could be
upset that we apperently get "cross-generational" update/backdate and they do
not.
Should DSMs be allowed to update/backdate to the 2K Eclipse? My official answer
is "that depends on how much of the '99 DSM is retained in it". From what little
I know about the car (and what my gut tells me) though, the 2K Eclipse appears
to be a completely new car, with little to no parts carryover. If that is indeed
the case, then no, the 2K+ Eclipse should be split out onto a separate line from
the 89-99 DSMs.
Furthermore, as nobody HAS a 2K Eclipse now, splitting it out onto a separate
line now doesn't hurt anybody - and that is VERY important.
I will say this though. Even if the 2K Eclipse were to be placed on the same
line, I _very strongly_ feel that the non-turbo V6 motor it comes with should
not be allowed to have a turbo backdated onto it, nor should a pre-2K be allowed
to update to the V6 but retain the turbo (assuming, of course, that the
drivetrain would even accept the swap). As I read the rules today, this wouldn't
be allowed anyway - I frankly don't see where the SEB sees the need for a new
rule.
All this update/backdate stuff the DSMs do now is due to the fact that, under
the skin, it has remained almost unchanged for 10 years. There is more changed
on F-body motors _within_ any given generation (except maybe the 4th, I'm not
real familliar with these cars) than there have been on the DSMs during their
entire production run.
Sure, there have been sheetmetal and interior changes, but look at the 2cd gen
F-Bodies, they had major changes almost every 2 years. One can accurately date a
2GFB from across a parking lot. (For Firebird, 70, 71-72, 73-74, 75-76, 77-79,
and 80-81, and I think Camaro mapped on the same)
> 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!
Why not? I really don't care what other people do with their cars. If you
sucessfully petition to get all F-Bodies on the same line and the resulting car
is too fast for ESP, then it will be reclassed higher. That's the way the system
works. Of course, you may encounter resistance from other F-Body types upset
that they'll have to spend more money to remain competitive, but at least that's
from within your own community.
There is a HUGE difference between "I have to spend more money to remain
competitive" and "I have to spend more money to remain legal" The former has the
option, the latter does not.
DG
|