Tom,
I might suggest starting a new thread with your plan/request as this has becoming too big to read or find anything.
Just a thought.
ttweed wrote:Dan-Dan Chambers wrote:So, how 'bout try to plan a get-together and begin the process of submitting a change in the rules?
I would be happy to participate in any "focus group" effort towards this end, but I also believe I could now make some proposals that would fix the situation and garner widespread support for them next year without doing this, but it might help to "fine-tune" my proposals ahead of time and gain insights from more brains applied to the task.
I have, however, thought of one thing that might still be done this year to at least fix the "old" AM problem and help equalize the "second tier" group of early car drivers. This would not involve any rule change at this point, but a modification of the "response to the proposals" crafted by the RC before it is presented to the Presidents in Nov.
Specifically, I am talking about my Proposal #30, which Paul has stated was not understood by the RC. He has also stated in this thread that he was under the impression that a modified car could use the update/backdate rule in a way that differs from my strict, literal interpretation of it, allowing a "T" or Normal model on the same model line in the chart to be considered as having been upgraded to "S" specs at some time in the past before it was modified beyond stock specs. If his interpretation of the rule is correct, and that has always been the intent with the update/backdate provisions, then my proposal was unnecessary, as the rules already provide for this possibility.
If the RC are all of the same mind as Paul, and my subsequent explanations of my reasons for the proposal here have clarified it somewhat, then all that has to be done is to change the response to my proposal to be something like: "This proposal is unnecessary, as the intent of the existing rule is to allow such "virtual" or "hypothetical" updates within an existing model line, even when the car has been modified beyond the Stock classes."
This response document would then serve as a "clarification" to the existing rule, and no change to it would be necessary. A competitor could point to the clairification as justification for calculating his engine swap points on a 911T the same as an S model on the same line would, if protested. I did not give an example in my proposal of it, but I believe there are also some difference in published weights for different models on the same line in the chart, so this would equalize the early cars in the weight area as well, for determining points penalties in the modified classes.
Does this make sense? Is it feasible at this late date?
It will not solve the whole classing issue, but at one time there were a lot of "stock engine swap" cars running in AM that were penalized differently while being identical except for the model designation. Now that JR and Mike G. have modified their motors, maybe Dan A. is the only one who would still be effected by this, but I think it is necessary for future competitors and/or cars in the other modified classes besides AM to level competition.
Thx,
TT
Dan-gulf911 wrote: Sorry for the late response, but I am unclear on how that will help AM. Can you use an example?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests