Originally posted by lateapex911:
Well, you might have known that you'd be adding 20% of the posts!
Damn, you're right! Too much time on my hands I guess... I need to get a real job.
Originally posted by lateapex911:
Maybe you can make a case that they are all cheats, but what exactly is the performace gain from either?
Look, in a perfect world, we might like to ahve a better harness rule...but the costs (unintended consequences) of such a rule are likely to much greater than the status quo.
Why does it have to be a perfect world? Let's make a better rule! If we can't all agree, that's OK, but at least we'll see how people could get around (unintended consequences) what is proposed. To this point, no one has offered any way to get around my original suggestion, save the connector issue, that would offer ANY performance advantage. And from what you're saying Jake, no one would protest me (well, at least you wouldn't) because there is no "percieved performance advantage.
Point is, if it's what's done in practice, and it meets the philosophy of the class, shouldn't it be the rule? I believe it bloody well should (I got it right that time George
)
--Tangent Time- get some popcorn--
A certain college had a real problem with students shortcutting the paths and walking on the grass. This caused all sorts of unsightly landscaping issues. No matter what the college did, put up banners, barriers, or even set fines, nothing stopped the problem. In fact, a local group got together and made a big stink about the fine thing to the local TV news.
A civil engineering student came up with the solution.
The college tore out most of the old walkways which had been added over the years, then opened everything up as a free-for-all. They observed the pathways taken in the unrestricted environment. Then, they re-worked all the pathways and landscaping around the paths that were formed. Suddenly, there were very few problems with people walking on the grass, and the new system that was developed actually made things easier to deal with for everyone involved.
--end of story-- Yes, it is true.
Now, for those that will argue that this will cause the demise of IT, I would submit that once the rules fit the situation better, it is EASIER TO ENFORCE THEM. It's not that there's less to enforce, it's the fact that no one has to make the judgement of what is a *valid* rule violation. There's no call to be made about, "well, everyone does that" or, "there's no real advantage there, so WTF." Also people seem to be so concerned about what the next permutation will be. Did you ever stop to think that if the rules really fit, the only changes that would be needed are either 1) corrections or edits for clarity and 2) items to address new circumstances that were not in place before?
Some people are criticizing the idea of a rewrite, when I personally feel that it's LONG overdue! We need to get with the times here. I don't see too many cars on the road today that are based off of a 70's chassis and body design (Ford Fox bodies are a horrible exception), so why are we still using a rulebook from that time as the basis for the class?
I didn't mean to go off again here on my same soapbox. I guess it's the thing that one of the first things I read here was Jake's "A Protest Story", and I found it to be an awesome piece. I have a ton of respect for Jake and the other protestors, as they did not go after the guy for "insignificant" items. I guess my issue is, who decides what is insignificant, and if it really makes no difference, then what's the rule for in the first place?
I guess that ITCS really stands for Improved Touring Category Suggestions.
------------------
Matt Green
"Ain't nothin' improved about Improved Touring..."
[This message has been edited by ShelbyRacer (edited December 28, 2004).]
