Quote:
The problem is that - with due respect - your logic is terribly flawed. Your argument moves from the assumption that "lower spec" (fewer rules allowances) will allow you to be competitive for less money. It's been demonstrated over and over that rules restrictions do NOT limit spending. The amount of money someone is willing to chuck at a race car depends on lots of things - desire to be competitive (which is influence by perceived value to running up front, a la "pro" racing or high profile events like the ARRC), competition (if you are the only guy in your class and can win with a half-assed effort, you don't feel pressured to spend more $$, the amount of discretionary income laying about, etc.
K
[/b]
I would say you are right and wrong at the same time. The lower spec I am suggesting would go a long way at making the cars more reliable, and if it is less "high strung" stressed, whatever then it should last longer and that would be cheaper. I don't like the idea of 10k trans. and moving susp pickup points, these are very expensive for not a good return, outlaw them and save money, And the trans should last as the cars will make less power. People are going to spend what they are going to spend there is no way around that. There are some VERY expensive programs in IT, the rules have not limited spending. I think the logic is sound if the lower spec limits the amount of time rebuilding things because they have just been pushed too far, it will be cheaper.