autox
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Megabuck cars, was: AP as viewed from fourth place

To: "Jeff Winchell" <Jeff@Winchell.Com>, <Autox@autox.team.net>
Subject: Re: Megabuck cars, was: AP as viewed from fourth place
From: "Scotty *BOB* White" <we2fat4asp@seanet.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 08:49:34 -0700
   Ok, here's the deal guys,
the RSR that Greg & Jodi drove is *NOT* state of the art technology, it's
*LAST* years state of the art ;-) Also note that it can be had for right
around $125k.  Now if he brought out the water pumper... ;-)

sbw


-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Winchell <Jeff@Winchell.Com>
To: Autox@autox.team.net <Autox@autox.team.net>
Date: Thursday, September 23, 1999 10:49 PM
Subject: Re: Megabuck cars, was: AP as viewed from fourth place


>> Hmm interesting comment.  While it is true that one of the core values
>> of Solo2 is "economical competition", just how would you write the
>> rules such that a car would be excluded simply because it was too
>> expensive?
>
>There are plenty of rules whose main purpose is to decrease car
>expenses (and others that increase them<s>). Also, cars that are very
>limited in production, are also more expensive. The rules that exclude
>cars based on production counts are also partly rules that limits
>expensive cars.
>
>> When the Phantom first crushed the rest of A-Mod, (by 5.6 seconds)
>> Everyone was saying. "You can't bring a car like that into Solo2".
>> There was even a proposal to create another Super Mod class.  The
>> situation is IMHO, identical to the current reaction over Fordahl's
>> RSR 3.8.  The Phantom is actually quite basic in its technological
>> make-up.  It cost a lot to build and develop.  The actual figure is
>> somewhere approaching six figures.  Many would argue that this is
>> acceptable in A-Mod since it's Solo2's "unlimited" class.  However, I
>> don't think the rest of the A-Mod competitors would agree with you.
>> I'm pretty sure it's cost a bunch for Craig Nagler to do his M3
>> (probably six-figures too).  Every once in a while, the creep of
>> technology takes a jump.
>
>I think 250,000 (if that is the number) is too much for any autocross class
>unless you create a single one just for that level of expense. Darwinian
>attrition will kill that class very quickly and that will prove that no
cars
>should cost that much in autocross (at least not ones intended to win
>national championships).
>
>Is 100,000 too much for any autocross class? There I don't know. I think
>it could be feasible for a few classes to expect that level of expense, but
>not many.
>
>And it is also good that some classes are designed to be won by cars
>costing 10,000, and that you can't effectively spend more than that.
>
>I'm sure everyone has varying levels where they would do things and that
>the SCCA as a whole arrives at a reasonable compromise. And that like
>all rules, they have to be modified as people find ways around their
>intent. I think this Porsche shows that the intent of Prepared class has
>been broken and that some rules changes need to be made to disallow
>this particular type of problem.
>Jeff Winchell
>http://PonyCar.Net
>


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>