Using a very loose definition of democracy, we now have a very dodgily constructed two-engined formula. Possibly.
The fact is, in one championship � EPEC, the organisers have been ambushed, and for the sake of a calming of the waters, possibly commercial reasons and a commendable desire not to throw babies out with bathwaters have reacted quickly, as baldyheadreg has said. The weighting issue is basically guesswork (as is being inferred), and the gearing limitation for 200s mentioned on EPEC�s Facebook page has now disappeared (has it �. ??). As I say, dodgily constructed � and hardly EPEC�s fault.
In the thread below, Gregor correctly touches on the �genuine concerns� that some people have. They can only be addressed by a bit of real information on actually how this is going to work and that has to come from BHP and race organisers � especially the dyno conditions and sealing issues, on which this all hang.
To dress this up as some sort of antidote to �small� grids is absurd. Apart from the fact that the number of leisure activities have increased globally, and the participant pool (and it�s income) hasn�t, there was already a cost-cutting measure in place, buy-back. To suggest that the �400 (+ VAT ?) buy-back for the 200s is one of the reasons that this will work ���.. when basically the same thing was already in place for the 160s doesn�t make a great deal of sense.
I�m damned if I�m going to bung the best part of a grand at something so shaky.
All this is ample proof that the necessary debate wasn�t had early enough or conducted widely enough, and b******t has baffled brains. KN�s slow, thoughtful, measured approach to improvements has been the way to go IMO, and it�s a pity that that seems to have been forgotten � or worse.
|
|