Randy Chase wrote:
>
> Paul Foster wrote:
> > Sounds like so much rationalization to me. Instead of trying to place
> > labels on the classes why not just class cars by relative times?
>
> Because similar cars are not as course dependant. If you mixed cars that
> are very different, then course becomes much more of a factor (yes, I
> know it already is). Just because I run the same times as an FS car,
> does not mean we should be in the same class.
I understand the rationale of trying to put cars in a class based on
course dependencies, but I don't like it when people start putting
labels on classes. IMHO that is why things got so screwed up for a
while. A car should belong in a particular class because it turns
comparable times regardless of course design, not because it is an
affordable sports car. It shouldn't matter. What happens if a more
expensive sports car comes along that would otherwise be ideal for CS?
Does it have to run in AS because of it's sticker price???
>
> > Besides, when the 1.6 Miata was in BS and these cars were in CS the
> > Miata was faster. How has this changed with time?
>
> huh? Which cars were faster? The 1.6L Miata was not faster than the MR2
> years ago. It was close and I was not a very good driver. The MR2s were
> developed and faster drivers bought them.
Before the 1.8L 'R' Miatas came along the 1.6L Miatas were dominating BS
and they were faster than CS. How is that going to be different now?
>
> The 1.6l Miatas are moving to CS more for the sake of CS than for the
> 1.6L miatas, if that makes sense.
Sounds like CS is doing pretty well without an apparent overdog. It just
looks to me like Miatae will now be winning 2 classes instead of 1.
Looks like another Neon deal from my perspective...
Paul Foster
|