Andrew_Bettencourt@kingston.com wrote:
> Classing cars of similar types in similar classes was the *guideline* It
>simply
> can't happen in all cases. The example you state (300ZX TT, 3000GT TT and
>Supra
> TT), while it supports your argument, doesn't make the best sense for the
> membership. While similar in design, the performance parameters of the Supra
> far exceed the Nissan and the Mitsu for Solo2 applications. Would it be right
> to group them together in Class 2 (to the detriment of the other 2 cars) just
> because they are similar in some ways? Should the SEB move the Supra into
>Class
> 3 to be mated to the others for the same reason? I say no. There are
> exceptions to every rule and it wouldn't have been the right thing to do
> (IMHO)to just start lumping like cars together without taking a closer
> look at each one.
I never said I believed that those particular cars have equal
performance on an autox course, nor did I mention whether *I* thought
they should be classed together, which is certainly debatable.
I was merely pointing out the contradictions in the stated classing
goals and what as actually done. Again, you couldn't pick two more
similar cars then the 300ZX TT and the Supra TT. I actually owned a
1990 300ZX TT years ago, which I occasionally autocrossed. IMHO, a
well prepared 300ZX TT would be closer to the Supra than you apparently
believe, which leaves room for debate about whether they should be
classed together or not, particularly in light of their nearly
identical specifications.
> To say that the members of the SCAC have let there class situation cloud
> there judgment is a little harsh, don't you think?
As Mark Sipe has pointed out, it is hard to avoid that perception. Yes,
I think it may have been a little harsh, thats one reason I filled that
paragraph with qualifiers like "some members", "IMHO", "I hate to say
it", "it appears", and "possibly". I couldn't think of any others at
the time. I can think of no other reason why this group would propose
that a car that clearly fits best into this class would propose to throw
it into a another class filled with cars that have *three times* the
displacement, and are disimilar in nearly every way.
> The only significant change to AS
> (Class 3) was the removal of the S2000, which you deem uncompetitive in there
> anyway. Is that the only fast you are basing that accusation on? I hope not.
> I have written my letter, everyone else should too.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Andy Bettencourt
Let's see.......from my post:
"Taken as a whole, the measured maximum track performance of the two
is quite close...."
"Acceleration is also very close, as long as the S2000 is kept in its
stratospheric powerband."
And then:
"The Boxster and S2000 should be classed together, wherever that may be."
Sounds to me like I think they should be competitive, with the edge
probably to the Boxster. That's what I meant anyway, and I thought this
would be very clear. Guess not, sorry. I did ramble a lot, as usual.
Gary
|