On Wed, 7 Jun 2000, Kevin Stevens wrote:
> So then why wouldn't it be ok to lower the stock driver's seat to solve the
> visibility problem (and BTW decrease Cg)?
I was actually going to mention the seat issue specifically, but skipped
it for brevity. But, since you asked, I probably would be more comfortable
(due to reduced wind buffeting) with a lower seat. But I would _not_
support allowing lowering/replacing/modifying a seat as a C&C mod. Too far
into that gray area of something someone might do with an eye towards
improving performance vs. a simple comfort/convenience motivation.
I think you can make valid arguments either way on many of these C&C
issues (I could probably argue strenuously either way on shifter knobs,
for example)--I don't think there are any absolute universal truths about
this stuff. My points are:
1) It would be best to make the rules more explicit one way or the other
wrt common items--sun visors, mirrors, shift knobs for some examples.
2) I would argue that sun visors should fall in the allowed mod category
(and probably mirrors too, although the sun visor thing seems more clear
cut to me). If the general consensus goes the other way, fine, but let's
spell it out either way.
If the rule is "must leave sun visors in place" then mine will be in place
when I compete, at least at national events. Otherwise, I'd prefer to
leave it out. Hmm, I'll be at the Tour in Peru. Perhaps I should offer to
fall on my sword and be protest bait by running without the visor so we
could get an answer on that one?
> Why wouldn't it be ok to bend
> pedals up for short people (and BTW get better heel-toe setup)? Why
> wouldn't it be ok to raise the stock driver's seat? To add cushions? To add
> a foamed-in cushion/bolster? Where do you stop?
This is where the "interface with the driver" wording has merit--i.e.
"leave anything the driver sits on or manipulates to control the car
stock" may be a good way to go. Again, either way, let's make the rule
more specific.
> adjudicate it. If you don't fit the car, I recommend that you not try to
> compete in it.
Sure, absolutely. But there's "fit" and then there's "fit". I fit in the
Miata just fine. I'm just happier without the visor--a modification I see
as being pure C&C. To me, that's not the same as "I need the shift lever
moved 4", I need 4" more seat travel, a non-stock tilt steering wheel, and
the pedals shifted to the right just to be able to drive the thing".
> If it's not safe for you to drive at an event, it's not safe
> for you to be driving on the street.
Certainly can't argue with that. If you can't see out the right half of
your windshield, please stay home. But if that rearview is a slight vision
obstruction, that could be a problem in the bang-bang, corner-worker
infested environment of autoxing, then maybe that's different. Maybe not.
I'm not married to the rearview mirror thing, but it would be helpful for
some folks to have the rule clarified.
Tom
|