Now we are really talkin' Cuba Gooding Jr
The most recent posts are starting to get at the heart of the problem: it is not the petition it is the process.
The petition process is flawed because it allows year to year changes by the current drivers of an existing class no matter how absurd and short sighted.
This by definition never allows technology growth (new motors) within the existing class structure and also suppresses all forms of innovation. Well, not all forms because it encourages some innovative ways of "working around" the original intent of Stock Outboard by allowing modification of scarce parts or inclusion of OEM parts and/or allowing modification of the manufactured outboard to ensure legacy motors are viable. I do not share this vision of what Stock Outboard is and generally put those concepts into Modified Outboard.
The petition process itself actually creates a situation that the existing motors can never be replaced by anything new until a majority that owns that next new thing create a quorum and vote the tired aluminum out. This never occurs because the old tired aluminum always has the numbers to petition a change that ensures the suppression of the new aluminum. (Catch-22)
The petition process essentially ensures status quo without ever taking into context the future of the class or the sport.
To bring this home to the question of the day: Please ask yourself how does the elimination of the SW-20 help either the sport or the class?
As long as we are discussing the future of a class or the sport I would like to point out that there is nobody in the entire structure of APBA that is tasked with the responsibility of promoting and advancing the sport.
Also, there is no process to remove a class from Stock Outboard since the 12 boat rule got eliminated.
With no clear vision of what Stock Outboard is, there is no clear vision of where Stock Outboard is going.
BW
The most recent posts are starting to get at the heart of the problem: it is not the petition it is the process.
The petition process is flawed because it allows year to year changes by the current drivers of an existing class no matter how absurd and short sighted.
This by definition never allows technology growth (new motors) within the existing class structure and also suppresses all forms of innovation. Well, not all forms because it encourages some innovative ways of "working around" the original intent of Stock Outboard by allowing modification of scarce parts or inclusion of OEM parts and/or allowing modification of the manufactured outboard to ensure legacy motors are viable. I do not share this vision of what Stock Outboard is and generally put those concepts into Modified Outboard.
The petition process itself actually creates a situation that the existing motors can never be replaced by anything new until a majority that owns that next new thing create a quorum and vote the tired aluminum out. This never occurs because the old tired aluminum always has the numbers to petition a change that ensures the suppression of the new aluminum. (Catch-22)
The petition process essentially ensures status quo without ever taking into context the future of the class or the sport.
To bring this home to the question of the day: Please ask yourself how does the elimination of the SW-20 help either the sport or the class?
As long as we are discussing the future of a class or the sport I would like to point out that there is nobody in the entire structure of APBA that is tasked with the responsibility of promoting and advancing the sport.
Also, there is no process to remove a class from Stock Outboard since the 12 boat rule got eliminated.
With no clear vision of what Stock Outboard is, there is no clear vision of where Stock Outboard is going.
BW
Comment