I'm NOT arguing this because I think it's an example of how things should be but...
...which restricts only the wiring. It says zilch about vacuum lines and frankly, since additional wiring is specifically prohibited, one can *reasonably* infer that HAD the rules-makers wanted to restrict vacuum or other connections, they would have said that.
The production car reverse issue is a great example, and Bill makes a very illustrative point about the rules changing the following year. Our system reacts to cheats by dinking with the written rules, rather than by enforcing the ones we have. Someone has to be the grown-up and just say no but because we rely on hundreds of random volunteers spread out around the nation, who don't receive the same training or information, to enforce what's written, we are in a bind. Add to that (again, influenced by the volunteer dynamic) the fact that the stewards and tech folks are more than happy to defer the initiation of action to the competitors, and the system truly binds up.
We can write paper NOW if we want but for the most part, we don't. A parc expose would NOT be intended to be an opportunity to find things to protest. Instead, it would be a different approach that encourages discussion - it's the concept of daylighting: Putting things out in the open so folks feel more involved, rumors can get quashed with actual facts, and people could come to consensus re: some of the illegalities that fall through cracks now. Peer pressure.
We can't - even with the ITAC's efforts to root out issues - fix enforcement problems by changing the book. Create a tech inspectors' and stewards' website with binding interpretations. Make appeals precedential. Chuck that system altogether. Who knows but it's about enforcement.
K
[/b]
Bookmarks