Boys. boys, boys. All our current classes are "I" classes. We just con
eachother into believing otherwise. Relax and have fun.
Dennis' proposal is a good one... but I urge everyone to keep the rules
simple regardless of if it gives one car a competitive advantage. A wide
open class is going to always be a rich man's class at the highest level.
For us poorer competitors it will be a nice "run what ya brung" class but we
shouldn't expect to win nationally.
Regards,
Alan
On Friday, July 16, 1999 11:51 AM, Rick Cone [SMTP:conekiller@cwix.com]
wrote:
> 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.
>
> SCCA and IMSA both thought the same thing before the Audi's came over and
> kicked everyone's but. There is no substitue for having all 4 wheels
drive.
> Look at the Mears at Pikes Peak, look at the fastest rally cars. Why do
you
> think AWD is banned in SCCA Showroom Stock?
>
>
> >STU is about diversity. It's about "run whacha bring". It's about the
> freedom to
> >do what you want within a broad formula. It's not about boring, cookie
> cutter
> >classes dedicated to single marquees.
>
> I totally disagree here. It is not about run whacha brung. If it was you
> would allow all cars, within your engine formula to compete. Not just
cars
> with more then 2 seats. This is just a 'since I am not competitive in ST
> lets make STU' or 'My car is not legal for ST so lets make STU because I
> don't want to run Prepared or Modified' and 'I don't want 2 seat sports
cars
> in the class'
>
> Don't matter how many ways you slice the cake this is still an "I" class.
> If you want this class to truely be STU, U being unlimited, unrestricted,
> uncola, unwhatever, you should allow 2 seat sports cars. What are afraid
> of? Competition or getting beat?
>
> Rick Cone
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dg50@daimlerchrysler.com <dg50@daimlerchrysler.com>
> To: Rick Cone <conekiller@cwix.com>
> Cc: autox@autox.team.net <autox@autox.team.net>; werace4u@aol.com
> <werace4u@aol.com>
> Date: Friday, July 16, 1999 11:27 AM
> Subject: Re: STU Rules Update Update
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >> Well I think you may be on to something.... It definitely is wide open
>
> if
> >and only if you band all wheel drive.
> >
> >And ban not only the second most popular riceboy car (the DSMs) but also
> the
> >Audi A4, the Audi TT, the Suburu WRX, etc. etc. etc.
> >
> >Nope. This is a _permissive_ class. We aim to let as many people as we
> possibly
> >can play here.
> >
> >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.
> >
> >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.
> >
> >Now imagine McKiver or Allen in a built-up DSM. That sounds like a pretty
> fair
> >fight to me - in fact, I'd put my money on Daddio in the Neon.
> >
> >> AWD will be a HUGE advantage in
> >> getting power down, especially when you talk about the power you guys
> >> could potentally make.
> >
> >I won't lie to you (or anyone else) - I expect that STU will be dominated
> by
> >DSMs for the first season or so. The reason _why_ I think that is because
> the
> >DSMs have more tuning and development time in them than any other
STU-esque
> >cars. 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 wouldn't be beating this drum if it were
> otherwise.
> >
> >However, being intimately familliar with these cars, having seen
first-hand
> >(thanks to Harnish and Tatum) what a small, light car can do, and having
> been
> >associated with the Sport Compact Car "scene" for a number of years, I
know
> that
> >there are lots of other cars out there (and undoubtably, lots of cars I
> don't
> >even know about) that have just as much potential in this class as the
DSMs
> do.
> >As these cars are built and sorted out, the DSMs will have competition -
> and
> >that's a Very Good Thing. What I loved about G Stock was that there were
6
> or 7
> >different brands of car that could win on any given day. It made for
> exciting
> >racing. STU is GS on steroids.
> >
> >My expectation is that the DSM domination period in STU will be a lot
> shorter
> >than, say, the Miata domination period in BS, or the Neon domination
period
> in
> >DS - because unlike the Stock classes, you have the option to build a
slow
> car
> >faster.
> >
> >STU is about diversity. It's about "run whacha brung". It's about the
> freedom to
> >do what you want within a broad formula. It's not about boring, cookie
> cutter
> >classes dedicated to single marques.
> >
> >DG
> >
> >
> >
|