In a message dated 1/12/02 3:48:46 PM Pacific Standard Time,
bklingler@worldnet.att.net writes:
>
> I have a serious concern that Byron's proposal is not being taken very
> seriously by some. I strongly believe that we should be endeavoring to
> control the "extra" costs in our grassroots level AutoX classes.
I agree that we should endeavor to control costs.
> Your message below indicates that if we require stock shocks, we will cheat
> with "stock appearing" shocks. Now if I were to accept your premise, I
> could further infer that the cheating would not be limited to shocks; then I
> would have to quickly conclude that Stock Classes cannot work. I truly hope
> you didn't mean to imply that.
You've just taken my meaning and extrapolated it far beyond what I said.
> You previously indicated you had arguments against? stock shocks in Stock
> Classes. Please present them clearly, because so far, some of us have
> resisted spending the $3,000-$x,000 extra it would have taken to have a
> chance to move up from 3rd to 1st place. Do you believe that we need to?
>
I feel that a stock shock rule is 1) too restrictive, 2) dangerous unless we
change the stock tire allowances to go along with it, 3) excludes someone on
KYBs, Tokicos, Konis or Bilsteins that were not OE on their car, and 4)
nearly impossible to enforce. However, there may be a way to write the rule
that can work. The SEB is continuing to discuss this, and will do so face to
face and with samples to examine at the February meeting at tthe National
Convention.
Charlie
/// unsubscribe/change address requests to majordomo@autox.team.net or try
/// http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo
/// Partial archives at http://www.team.net/archive
|