John
With regards this comment:
*"If you are asking whether people will use every option available in their
quest for performance, then the answer is yes – pretty much by definition."*
I understand that to be the case and it's very obvious that there is a
massive effort expended in pursuit of performance enhancement.
But that's not really what my question was about - it was more to do with
exploiting vague areas of the rules specifically to gain advantage.
Possibly without any effort at all apart from spotting a vague area...
I'm don't get the feel that anyone in F1D is particularly aligned in that
direction.
Best regards
Simon
On 29 March 2018 at 15:23, john_kagan_at_hotmail.com [Indoor_Construction] <
Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Simon,
>
>
>
> " Does anyone really want to find a loophole in the rules to exploit to
> gain an advantage?"
>
>
>
> If you are asking whether people will use every option available in their
> quest for performance, then the answer is yes – pretty much by definition.
>
>
>
> Not that long ago, the common thought on purchased hubs was, "I'd
> certainly buy one, but I'd never use it in competition". I heard that more
> times than I can count. Then it apparently slowly transmogrified into an
> acceptable practice in some corners (despite being a clear contradiction to
> the rules), and people began saying, "well, if so-and-so is using a
> purchased hub, then I guess I will, too". And here we are.
>
>
>
> " We need to make sure there is a happy consensus"
>
>
>
> The unfortunate reality is that there isn't a consensus. The best we are
> going to get is some open dialogue, and then a ruling that leaves one group
> or the other unsatisfied. Until if/when there is a change, and then the
> other group is going to be unsatisfied.
>
>
>
> What we can hold on to, though, is that most of us want what is best for
> the activity in the long run.
>
>
>
--
Best regards
Simon Bargery
Received on Thu Mar 29 2018 - 14:48:20 CEST