On Fri, 7 Jul 2000 12:18:58 -0500 , rjohnson@friendlynet.com wrote:
>
> Mike:
>
> 1.) There is far more to competitiveness than alignment. There
> are cars in my class with 100 hp more than I have - so by your
> reasoning, I should be able to run their motor, right?
Sure, why not, as long as they can lower their cars to equal your cars
weight. :) Seriously though, I mentioned nothing about horsepower, I only
mentioned specific (and cheap) items where I don't think it should matter
what you do.
> 2.) Each time you add allowances, you make it more difficult
> to attract and retain new competitors. They are often overwhelmed
> by the appearance of what it takes to be competitive.
Like Mr. M. Sipe said, if you think stock is this way (pure and innocent),
you're kidding yourself. It's already involved and expensive. What is the
average cost for a set of shocks on the class winning cars at nationals?
I'm guessing at LEAST a $1000. It's probably $1500 or higher. Not to
mention that most cars are trailered because they are next to undrivable on
the street. You better ban trailering stock cars to events if you're REALLY
devoted to keeping it pure and innocent as you seem to be. Better ban those
expensive lightweight wheels too (creating more disparity in classes since
some cars come with light wheels from the factory). Face it, anyone who
thinks it is cheap to run a competitive stock class car is fooling
themselves. We all do this because we like it, not because it's cheap. If
you want to truely race cheap, start slot car racing or something. I'm not
trying to be a jerk or anything, but I just can't see how this argument
holds up.
> 3.) Each time allowances are changed, or vehicles are re-classed, you
> cost people money. Money that could be spent travelling to events,
> paying entry fees, and the like. Sometimes, the status quo
> is the best solution even if it isn't the right solution.
>
See above. I don't think you'll lose any members if you allow Miata drivers
(and all others too), to REMOVE their sunvisors, or an M Coupe driver (and
all the others too again) to remove their rear view mirror. That's free.
Oh wait, no it's not, it takes some energy to remove them, and that took
food which cost them a couple bucks. And I don't think that allowing pedal
covers or shift knobs will lose you any member's either due to cost (not
that they're even needed to win, but those that feel that they need them can
oblige themselves). And allowing whatever alignment involves inginuity and
engineering more so than it costs any big money. Wouldn't it be cheaper to
modify your existing car to be more competitive than it would be to go out
and buy a new car to be more competitive? Obviously driving is still the
biggest performance related issue, but we're classing cars here, not
drivers.
-------------------
Mike Lamfalusi
'97 VW Jetta GLX
GS - Chicago Region
> Roger
>
>
>
>
> LA>On Fri, 7 Jul 2000 02:22:49 EDT, TeamZ3@aol.com wrote:
>
> LA>> Funny, I was thinking just the opposite. Stock competitiveness
typically
>
> LA>> boils down to one thing; the "haves" and "have nots". Those that
have
> LA>race
> LA>> alignment capability and those that don't. How competitive would a
Neon
> LA>be
> LA>> if it has only 1 degree of negative camber instead of 3+ degrees?
My
> LA>opinion
> LA>> is that we take too much of a primadonna attitude towards keeping
Stock
> LA>pure
> LA>> and innocent, which it hardly is. You can't expect to take the
gamet of
> LA>> automobiles, of which each manufacturer has their own agenda and
> LA>priorities,
> LA>> and have parity. Your either going to have few classes comprised
of many
>
> LA>> dogs or too many classes to even comprehend like the NCCC.
> LA>>
> LA>> I wouldn't mind giving up all the Stock allowances, except that IMO
we
> LA>should
> LA>> open up the alignment allowance to achieve any caster & camber
setting
> LA>deemed
> LA>> prudent by the competitor. Pure Stock is a noble idea that has
never
> LA>panned
> LA>> out, and never will. SCCA Racing finally had to come to grips with
this,
> LA>but
> LA>> now they have themselves right back into another unmanagable stew
playing
> LA>the
> LA>> Trunk Package game. Just give them the alignment capability and
then let
>
> LA>> them fall in where they will.
> LA>>
> LA>> M Sipe
> LA>>
>
> LA>I couldn't agree more with this thought. Stock class already isn't
very
> LA>stock and those who are competitive nationally and win nationally
already
> LA>spend a LOT of money on the car, so trying to keep things cheap and
"stock"
> LA>is slightly unrealistic.
>
> LA>Let's say you have two very similar cars in HP, weight, drivetrain,
car A
> LA>and car B. If car A has a camber range from the factory of 0-1
degree, and
> LA>car B has a camber range of 0-3, and car B ends up dominating because
of the
> LA>camber help, then the owners of car A would obviously want either
their car
> LA>or car B put in a different class because they can't match the
competitive
> LA>level of car B. Now, if we allow ALL cars whatever alignment they see
fit,
> LA>then car A can now keep up with car B and no reclassification is
necessary
> LA>and there are less complaints etc.
>
> LA>There will be more parity within each class and many more types of
cars in
> LA>each class if EVERYONE is allowed to do what they want with alignment
(and
> LA>maybe a few small other things). People complain about one car's
advantage
> LA>over another due to coming equipped with item A, but guess what, if
all cars
> LA>are allowed to be equipped with item A, then it ceases to be an
advantage,
> LA>you create more parity, and don't have to reclass everything as often
and
> LA>you don't have to have too many different classes. Besides alignment,
I
> LA>think little things like visors, rear view mirrors, pedal covers, and
shift
> LA>knobs (you know, all of those things that we've debated over quite a
bit
> LA>recently) should also be "open" items. Do what you want with those
things.
> LA>When everyone can do it, no one can complain that they have a
disadvantage
> LA>due to any one of the above.
>
> LA>Yes its a slippery slope, where do you stop, blah blah blah, but it's
rather
> LA>obvious where we stop. The things that are obvious are the things
that
> LA>frequently get brought up in this forum, like those items I mentioned
above.
> LA>I don't want to stock to turn into some class where the cars are
barely
> LA>stock, but I think that debated comfort and convenience items,
alignment,
> LA>major wear items (shocks, exhaust...) should be free to change. None
of
> LA>these things is that expensive, at least no more so than it already
is, and
> LA>it will allow everyone one to make the changes so they won't have any
reason
> LA>to complain that their car didn't come factory equipped with the best
racing
> LA>style parts but some other car did (can I stress this idea enough?).
>
> LA>I know that this is not the politically correct opinion in SOLOII
circles,
> LA>and people won't like me for saying it, but so what. It's obvious
that
> LA>there is need for some change and I won't just sit like an old man,
pound my
> LA>fist and support the status quo just because its the status quo. "We
didn't
> LA>have no fancy pants stock class rules in my day. That's just the way
it was
> LA>and we liked it!" ;) Time changes, cars change, and so should we.
>
> LA>-------------------
> LA>Mike Lamfalusi
> LA>'97 VW Jetta GLX
> LA>GS - Chicago Region
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> LA>> rex_tener@yahoo.com writes:
> LA>>
> LA>> << That is an interesting thought. Now that the SEB is willing to
start
> LA>with
> LA>> a clean sheet of paper for all the stock classifications, maybe it
is
> LA>time
> LA>> to take away some of the "antique" stock allowances.
> LA>>
> LA>> Eliminate 13.4 wheel allowance.
> LA>>
> LA>> Eliminate 13.7 front sway bar allowance.
> LA>>
> LA>> Eliminate 13.8 suspension crash bolts.
> LA>>
> LA>> Discuss amongst yourselves. >>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> LA>_______________________________________________________
> LA>Say Bye to Slow Internet!
> LA>http://www.home.com/xinbox/signup.html
>
>
>
_______________________________________________________
Say Bye to Slow Internet!
http://www.home.com/xinbox/signup.html
|