Quote:
Originally posted by Knestis:
Okay - in summary...
1. A high-zoot harness would clearly be a performance advantage. If it weren't there wouldn't be a company outside of Charlotte getting rich making AN/NAS-spec harnesses for NASCAR teams.
K
Does a $3000 dollar paint job make a car faster too? Just because someone is spending/making money on something doesn't make it faster.
Quote:
Originally posted by Knestis:
2. Further, the fact that people here are arguing for a change - even if really high-end parts are prohibited somehow - is prima facie evidence that they see it as beneficial to them - reliability just inceases the likelihood of winning. Gaining that reliability for less money than would have to be spent under the current rules, leaves those benefiting from the change with more money to buy tires, coaching, or track time - improving their relative competitive position.
K
If forcing people with older cars to live with less reliabilty is a way of deciding who is a better driver or car builder than we must be racing in two different series. Under the current repair rules I can't rebuild a harness to as new condition, so beacuse of that I should be at a disadvantage to a guy with a 5 year old car? This isn't like a wheel bearing where I can install a new one and it's my own fault if I don't and the car doesn't finish. I can't replace every wire in my harness as preventative maintenance (especially if the harness was never there) so
Quote:
Originally posted by Knestis:
3. There is simply no way to legislate budget in IT. Arguments about cost are not germane to the issue at hand. Concerns about increasing costs are a red herring because you can't keep me from spending that $5000 to go faster, whatever the rule. Similarly, suggestions that "it would be cheaper and easier" to build a reliable harness put us back at Point 2.
K
I agree you can't legislate a budget but restricting changes to those with big budgets hurts the have nots. A rule that puts everyone on the same ground is better than a restriction that limits what is possibly to those with the bigger checkbook.
Quote:
Originally posted by Knestis:
4. RE: trying to limit construction, material, and other attributes of allowed replacement harnesses: It is impossible to anticipate and legislate against every possible idea that someone might try. Writing a rule defnining what is NOT allowed will ALWAYS leave room for new, clever interpretations.
5. Those interpretations are the root of unintended consequences and rules creep. This is the TRUE potential downside of proposed changes to the wiring rules.
K
Yes, rules creep is something to be avoided but not at the cost of making it impossible, inpractical or unaffordable to put a legal car on track. There are times where modifications must be made and you do your best to write the rules to limit them. You may get it wrong, which is why you can rewrite the rule if the problem is serious. Otherwise, why don't we just go back to the car must be raced as built by the factory?
Quote:
Originally posted by Knestis:
6. Balanced against that is the very real issue faced by racers of older cars. However, I have yet to see any actual work proposed here that can't reasonably be accomplished under the current "repair" rule.
K
Then you haven't been paying attention to those people who don't have original intact harnesses, those with insulation that is cracking off the wires, conductors that are broken every 5 feet in every run, or factory connectors that are no longer available or sevicable. Those or the problems faced and a FSM doesn't show any way to legally fix them.
------------------
~Matt Rowe
ITA Shelby Charger
MARRS #96