I think what is being contemplated with the organization of the CSC for ’05 is awesome. Track owners having the vision to band together to create a better, more organized championship will only help karting grow in Colorado. Growth is good for everyone. And its only human nature that people will want to be involved in something that is well-run, than not. I really applaud the thinking on this topic.
I think the class/engine discussion intersects with this goal in two areas. First, Having a logical progression of classes so that drivers can develop is a good idea. If you look at other sports, participants progress in a very logical way (examples are endless). People that check out our sport do have trouble figuring out where to insert themselves and what the career path is, so to speak. Second, To retain people in any sport, affordability should be a big concern. Going from class to class in karting seems pretty expensive. Kids start in 2 cycle engines (comers) then go to gas 4 cycle engines (animals) where they can stay through age 15 (junior 2 uses gas 4 cycles ?), but if they choose either the TAG or shifter route they are into a whole other set of potential engines. If they go senior 4 cycle they are into alcohol. A good example of engine re-use class to class would be TAG Jr to TAG Sr to TAG Masters (I believe) and Novice shifter to Junior 80, (as long as you have an 80cc motor). Point being, encouraging engine compatibility between classes would be a good thing for cost. Its cheaper to rebuild or adapt an engine than to sell it for 50 cents on the dollar and start over.
Speaking of tech in general (and not the Zipnby situation specifically), to have a meaningful championship, we have to have meaningful tech that is enforced, otherwise cheaters will prosper and the value of winning suffers. People that try to play fair get frustrated and innuendo and rumors fly. Not good for the sport. Championships get an asterisk * next to them and people whisper (“yeah, he/she won, but …. blah blah blah).
In my simplistic mind, it seems “cheating” (liberal use of the word) can take on two forms: deliberate cheating and ignorant cheating. Though deliberate cheating is more egregious, ignorant cheating can also enhance performance. In my opinion, Tech should generally be like dealing with some lifetime bureacrat in the federal government: dispassionate, objective, the rules are the rules. Period. “I am sorry if you didn’t know… I am sorry if your season is screwed… your engine isn’t right and you are not legal.” Sorry. That is not to say that there shouldn’t be discretion applied, but IMHO it should probably only be applied when in a gray area or the “cheating” is a non-performance enhancing thing.