Simple != easy
Complex != difficult
KeS
BTW, while you're at it chop off that front bar allowance.
>From: Ghsharp@aol.com
>Reply-To: Ghsharp@aol.com
>To: bthatch@juno.com, autox@autox.team.net
>Subject: Re: Sequential Stock Classes
>Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 19:05:02 EDT
>
>In a message dated 7/6/00 5:48:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
>bthatch@juno.com
>writes:
>
> > Bill Martin sez:
> >
> > Perhaps a better approach would be to abandon SC,BoB in favor of
>straight
> > AX
> > potential. Class 1 is for your fastest cars, Class 9 for slowest.
> >
> > (snip) The initial placement would of course be by SEB with SCAC
>input.
> > Errors could be sorted out along the way, and fixing them is pretty
>easy
> > since all the rungs of the ladder are now sequential.
> >
> > As to course dependency, I think you have to aim for a typical
>Nationals
> > / Tour type
> > course. This means regions running on postage stamp courses or running
> > pseudo Solo I's will have some problems. But hey, there's never going
>to
> > be
> > a perfect solution. I believe there will be fewer built-in inequities
> > with
> > this type of system, and it could significantly reduce costs of this
> > sport
> > by giving older cars an opportunity for ongoing competitive classing.
> >
> > My reply:
> >
> > Hear, hear for this proposal!!! Brilliantly simple and easy to sort
>cars.
> > I LIKE IT. Kinda takes the politics and sponsorship potential
>inequities
> > out of it, too. Let's do it. But, methinks, some will hate the
>simplicity
> > of it.
> >
> > Ben Thatcher
>
>OK, so take the cars in the current proposal and show us where you would
>put them. Not just a few of them, but all of them. If it's simple it
>shouldn't
>take very long, right?
>
>GH
>
________________________________________________________________________
|