Kenneth,
You make all valid points. These points are ones that the SCAC and SEB have
considered for years. The early cars are the ones that will have documentation
issues but the problem becomes separating cars into classes based on years AND
option packages? I don't think there is any precedent for having the same MODEL
car in two different classes with different options.
Write a letter with your best explanation on how to solve the aforementioned
problems. How does the SEB divide the cars so that the 'tuner' piece gets
minimized?
How about all SS's and WS6's with LS1's get into FS...what year was that? 1998
and up? Can't quite remember...
AB
kdeja - Kenneth Deja <Kenneth.Deja@acxiom.com> on 07/06/2000 04:32:26 PM
Please respond to kdeja - Kenneth Deja <Kenneth.Deja@acxiom.com>
To: "'autox@autox.team.net'" <autox@autox.team.net>
cc: (bcc: Andrew Bettencourt/FIELD SALES/Kingston)
Subject: Re: SS/WS6 stock classification
As a biased WS6 owner, I'd like to add my 2 cents on the SS/WS6
reclassification topic (yeah I can hear the groans now). With all due
respect, I don't think people or the right people know or have the
information accurate (except for those of you that agree it should be moved
to FStock :-) ). I know and understand that the 96-97 SS/WS6 were built by
SLP and could be had with different springs and an Auburn diff. and the
classification made sense then, but the 98 to current ones are factory built
with only the hoods and wheels being added at SLP (ASC for the WS6). The
1998 to current WS6 and Camaro SS with the level I suspension is the SAME as
the 1LE suspension (F & R springs and swaybars) without the Koni DA's or the
stiffer bushings, but with 17 inch wheels. The fresh air hood scoops could
hardly be considered a performance gain on an autocross course, and others
have said it's a toss up between the 17 in. and the 16 in. wheels, with some
even saying the 16 inch wheel and tire is the preferable one to have. Why
couldn't we sub-categorize this car like we do other cars (98-current WS6
and 98-current SS with Level I suspension - Fstock)? This sport polices
itself pretty strongly, and I believe any cheaters would be spotted and
protested. I think those sitting 1.5" lower with 0 lean would be pretty
easy to pick out.
>> Mark Sipe wrote - Further, the fully developed, Stock class capability of
the SS/WS6 F-body has yet to ever be demonstrated, so suggesting a class
move with this circumstance generally appears to be considered premature.<<
That's because no one has been crazy enough to run it in SuperStock. I run
mine in ESP because of the better index. I don't think the SS and WS6 will
do any better in the "Class 2"..... class. Looking at some of the results
from this year's Tours, AStock was always ahead of FStock, and sometimes by
a huge margin.
I think it will eventually become a better fit, with the 99+ Mustang Cobras
being sorted out and the f-bodies getting the new heads and intake from the
new LS1 in the Corvettes. Wouldn't the SS/WS6 be good competitors against
these cars? If it's ok to class the Mustang Cobra with the Mustang GT's,
why is it a problem to class the SS (Level I suspension) and WS6 with the
Z28 and the Formula/Trans Am?
KD (I'm reluctant to send this, but.......)
|