Jay Mitchell wrote:
>
> I disagree. The popularity of the Neon in DS is due to large
> amounts of contingency money attracting the best drivers and the
> most intensive development efforts, which has a trickle-down
> effect on the purchase decisions made by other competitors. It
> doesn't hurt that the car is dirt cheap, either. The perception
> that only a Neon can win DS is, IMHO, mistaken. Until another
> manufacturer offers an attractive contingency package for a
> potentially good DS car, we won't know for sure.
And that it was placed in classes where it could dominate was just a
coincidence????
Perception? Take a look at the _times_ at Nationals. It would have won
CS, placed in 3rd in BS, and come in 4th in DSP. That is _perception_???
> No, it's not. The manufacturer, by definition, doesn't CHANGE
> springs, they INSTALL them. If a manufacturer offers a sport
> variant with stiffer springs/swaybars than some other version of
> the same model, then that variant is, by definition, a stock car.
> And it is appropriately classed in Stock, although it may need to
> be in a faster class than the plain-Jane version.
That sure sounds like semantics to me. Aut the _key_ is placing it in
the right class where it doesn't _dominate_.
> Manufacturer-supplied options are, with very few exceptions,
> known quantities. Competitor-modified items are not. One is
> stock, the other isn't. Why does this seem to be controversial?
Stock cars have suspensions which have inherent compromises that do not
lend themselves to be balanced on autocross or race courses. Street
prepared cars do not. Why is this so hard for some people to understand?
Paul Foster
|