>
>If you want to run with out a restrictor ....Open is a good class
>
Umm ... sorry, but this madness exists in OPEN as well !!!
(Or maybe you know this, and this was a sarcastic remark knowing how popular the planned restrictor rules are in Open x( )
- 40 mm restrictor for 2003 & 2004
- 34 mm restrictor planned for 2005
"restricted" and "Open" seems to me to be a contradiction in terms !!
If they go ahead with the 34mm restrictor rule for Open Class in 2005, it's gonna make things ultra-expensive for the grass roots, budget, open class competitor (major engine development / re-engineering required), but less so for the deep pocketed and now likely vaporware manufacturers.
As far as I understand it, some members of the BoG tried to veto the 34 mm restrictor rule planned for 2005, but the rule was pushed through anyway, despite the lack of any plausible, verifiable need for this rule !!
Unless the 34mm restrictor rule, can be _proven_ to fix some verifiable, existing problem within the class, the rule is without merit and will negatively effect the class.
Again, "restricted" and "Open" seems to me to be a contradiction in terms !!
P.S. Just to clarfiy, and prevent any skim readers from getting confused, all restrictor sizes and arguments above are related to "Open Class", not PGT (though some of the arguments may also be applicable to PGT).