On Fri, 7 Jul 2000 13:22:50 EDT, Ghsharp@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 7/7/00 12:05:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> lamfalus@excite.com writes:
>
> > Let's say you have two very similar cars in HP, weight, drivetrain, car
A
> > and car B. If car A has a camber range from the factory of 0-1 degree,
and
> > car B has a camber range of 0-3, and car B ends up dominating because
of the
> > camber help, then the owners of car A would obviously want either their
car
> > or car B put in a different class because they can't match the
competitive
> > level of car B. Now, if we allow ALL cars whatever alignment they see
fit,
> > then car A can now keep up with car B and no reclassification is
necessary
> > and there are less complaints etc.
>
> Alignment "adjustability" is just another thing you have to consider if
you're
> trying to pick a certain car for a certain class. It's one of the
advantages
> or
> disadvantages that are part of the "package" you select, and the classing
of
> the car over a period of time will reflect that. Your argument misses
the
> fact
> that there are some cars with minimum alignment adjustability that are
> capable of winning their class at the National level. If everyone was
allowed
> additional or unlimited adjustability on cars that don't have it now,
those
> cars
> that are already at the top of their class would have to be moved to a
higher
> class. How will this increase parity within the current classes?
>
> GH
A very good point. Are there any cases where you think this to be true?
Not debating, just asking as I can't immediately think of any.
-------------------
Mike Lamfalusi
'97 VW Jetta GLX
GS - Chicago Region
_______________________________________________________
Say Bye to Slow Internet!
http://www.home.com/xinbox/signup.html
|