dg50@daimlerchrysler.com wrote:
> > Now, I agree that part of the purpose of ST is to give newbies a
> > competitive place to play with their tricked out street cars fresh off
> > the street.
>
> NO. I do NOT agree with this. ST/STU is a class for enthusiasts with highly
> prepared, street driven, small-displacement sports coupes/sedans typical of
>the
> "Sport Compact Car" or "Import Drag" demographic. "ST" does not imply
>"newbie",
> nor does it imply "people who won't swap wheels at events"
You might not agree with it, but this WAS the original intent of the ST
class. Even says so right in the rule book, it's a "recruitment and
retention tool". I do NOT feel that it needs to be limited to this, nor
do I think it could ever be a successful National class based on that
demographic.
> Riceboys are not stupid. They realize - just like everyone else - that
>autocross
> chews up tires. Regularly competing in autox implies a second set of
> wheels/tires dedicated to competition use. Doing well implies that those
> competition-use-only tires be grippy, which normally implies "soft" and "short
> wearing" and quite possibly "shaved".
>
> Getting those qualities out of a non-R compound tire costs big bucks. Ask
>Mark.
You can get a lot of those qualities, at a somewhat reduced level,
without spending nearly as much money. My biggest gripe is that the
best tires are NOT AVAILABLE to half of the class. I don't think the
class should REQUIRE drivers to "upgrade" whatever car they choose to
drive to 16" wheels just so they can wear the competitive rubber.
> > But I believe it also has a secondary purpose, [snip]...
> > ... That is, to allow people like myself and most of the other Nationals ST
> > class, who actually LIKE to compete on our street tires a place to
> > compete in our daily drivers without spending a lot of money.
>
> In my opinion, the goals of "competing on your daily street tires" and
>"winning"
> are mutually exclusive. Two different kinds of tire for two different
>purposes.
Perhaps to some extent this may be true. But I think it should be
feasible for this to NOT be true. We have the power to write the rules
such that it is not nearly AS true as it is now. If you really believe
your last sentence, then you are not an advocate of a street tire class
at all. If a person is going to have a second set of wheels with tires
specifically for autocross purposes, they might as well compete in an
R-tire class.
> That's not to say there's no place for a street tire class. It makes no sense
>to
> require the occasional participant (less than 5 events per season, say) to
>have
> a second set of expensive race tires they hardly ever use. Regional street
>tire
> classes make a ton of sense. But National competitors are NOT occasional
> competitors by definition.
Obviously, you are not a proponent of the ST (street tire version)
class. As such, have you really got anything to add to this
discussion? Does it not annoy you when people tell you that STU drivers
should just play under the existing SP rules or live with whatever P or
mod class they end up in? Well, that's sort of what you're doing to me
here. Fight the STU fight, that's where YOU want to play. You have no
interest in playing in ST on street tires, let me fight that fight.
> > That last part is important. ST needs to remain inexpensive.
>
> I do agree that there is a place for the Riceboy demographic that's halfway to
> the full-on (happy!) lunacy of STU. One might argue that that place is Street
> Prepared, but there are those that see SP as still "too prepared"
The class you advocate for "half way STU" for those who want to have a
set of race wheels/tires is STR.
> It's tough to make everyone happy.
Yes, but remember that what makes YOU happy isn't necessarily what
everyone else is after.
--
Loren Williams | Homepage - http://home.kscable.com/shad
'94 Saturn SC2 | Wichita Region SCCA - http://www2.southwind.net/~scca
|