I've been trying to resist the urge to say something here, but I
just had to give in.
Dennis said:
>Nope. This is a _permissive_ class. We aim to let as many people
as we possibly
>can play here.
The Stock classes already allow a VERY wide variety of cars the
chance to play. The only POSSIBLE difference, if one can be made,
is to give a wider variety of cars the chance to WIN in a class.
>Besides, AWD brings with it a weight and driveline power
consumption penalty. It
>is not a panacea. A lightweight, powerful front or rear driver
is just as likely
>to be able to win as an AWD car.
Can you say "course-dependent?" How about "unintended and
unanticipated consequences?" I knew you could.
>Imagine Daddio in a turbo Neon with a limited slip front diff
and a real
>suspension. Imagine Endicott in a supercharged Integra R.
Imagine GH in a
>supercharged M3.
I haven't paid too much attention to this thread so far, but I
have seen enough to know you can't possibly imagine all the
possibilities in such a class. If you want the riceboys to take
an interest, I don't believe this is the way to go. If this
became a National class, it wouldn't be two seasons before
Solo-optimized cars dominated it. And the whole street-legality
issue, regardless of requirements for license plates, emissions
legality, etc., etc., will be very neatly and effectively
sidestepped.
If you allow significant suspension modifications, a truly
optimal Solo car won't be a very pleasant street ride. Nor will a
"typical" hot street suspension setup - typically done as much
for cosmetics as for actual performance - stand a chance against
a Solo-specific setup. I don't believe you'll reach your target
market with this class. The motivation is noble, I just don't
think the goal is achievable.
>There is a large and growing DSM autocross contingent, there are
a number
>of National-level DSM drivers, autocross is very visible and
promoted in the DSM
>community, and there's a long line-up of would-be DSM
autocrossers who only need
>a class to come play in.
I'm not sure I see what's wrong with GS or ESP for these
purposes, but obviously you feel the DSM cars need special
consideration. I disagree.
>STU is GS on steroids.
Ummm,more like ESP on steroids. Other than not allowing interior
removal, I don't see all that much to distinguish this class from
EM.
>because unlike the Stock classes, you have the option to build a
slow car
>faster.
Uhh, you mean sorta like SP? Or P? Or Mod?
>STU is about diversity. It's about "run whacha brung".
So is Mod. If you're shooting for "win with whatcha brung,"
however, it just won't happen.
>It's about the freedom to
>do what you want within a broad formula.
Sounds like Mod again.
> It's not about boring, cookie cutter
>classes dedicated to single marques.
You mean like the marque clubs have? SCCA doesn't have any of
those. If it happens that a particular car APPEARS to be the best
for a class (and appearances are often misleading), keep in mind
that this can and will change as new cars appear and become
popular.
Jay
|