Hi, Mark, thanks for your comments. I've seen enough of your posts to know
that your experience is well beyond what I'll ever be achieving myself, so
your viewpoint is appreciated. I hope you'll take my comments as the
constructive words they're intended to be.
My comments come from the opposite direction of yours: as a relative
newcomer to autocross, who sees the artificial barriers to entry that
experienced drivers have long since accommodated to. IF, and I know that's
a big if, IF autocrossing's goal is to keep bringing in fresh blood, then
I'm only suggesting that autocrossing make it easier for new players.
Personally I'd enjoy participating in a category of autocrossing that could
be called SL -- "street legal". The two rules I'd impose would be one
similar to the ST rule about street tires, including some kind of minimum
treadwear rating; and one that all mods be street legal mods on street
registered cars. Then let the *course design* govern.
My (yes, limited) experience with autocrossing demonstrates to me that I'm
as fast in my 90hp Pinto as I am in my 205hp SVO. That's partly because I
have to run at low boost on the SVO, because it has too much hp for the
street tires and suspension of this car.
That tells me that, at the very least the limitations are (1) the nut
holding the wheel, (2) the tight course designs, and (3) the suspension of
the Mustang. But I'd enjoy learning how to go faster, in a car that I can
do anything to that would be legal for street use, because to me
autocrossing's relevance is that it improves my cars and my driving for the
street.
My own cars are already improved for daily street driving -- by that, I
mean safe, legal driving on the street, not horsing around -- because of
what I've learned at autocrosses and high-speed track events.
For example, my restored Pinto sports a dead pedal, a revised gas pedal for
heel-and-toe, gauges, a non-slip steering wheel cover, wider tires and
wheels, sway bars front and back, a raised-lid air cleaner, and a
heavy-duty rear axle. These changes really make a difference in daily
driving of this car, in terms of safety and enjoyment, because it's
behavior on any given line is predictable and controllable.
But you know what, that last item (the axle) probably isn't a legitimate
update/backdate even for SP, so where does that leave my humble little car?
The axle I changed out because I had planned to return my Pinto to
turbocharged duty on the street, and wanted to be able to change out the
rear gear ratios at will (it's a removable carrier type, vs. the integral
carrier that was standard in the Pinto that year). Is that an unfair
advantage at an autcross track? Maybe, but probably not in a 27 year-old
economy car.
If someone can drive faster than I can in a $50,000 car, that doesn't
impress me as much as someone who can improve his car using his own
ingenuity and THEN go faster than I can. If that's an aging CRX or a
sparkling new Boxster, I say, more power to him -- and show me how it was
done! Personally I don't car HOW much was spent on the job -- I've seen
that cars and drivers can only go so fast on any given course, no matter
how much torque or $$$ they have. That's how good your course designers
are.
How about an SL category? I'll enter the first car.
Richard Nichols
San Diego, CA USA
rnichol1@san.rr.com
86 Ford Mustang SVO (61B) - 1C
(The Thinking Man's Mustang)
72 Ford Pinto 2.0 (62B) - 3J
(Over Three Million Served)
Mark said:
> So? Some classes have cars with Macpherson strut suspension, while
> others have dual A-arms, in the same class. Does that mean that those
> with struts should be allowed to change it?
>
> A car is as it is. It is an entire package. If you allow all cars to
> be modified to the same components, everyone ends up with the same car.
>
> Take a car from the factory, and determine its performance potential.
> Class it with other cars with similar potential. Except for the bottom
> half of the slowest class, this works for all cars. What's wrong with
> it?
>
> Mark
|