----- Original Message -----
From: George Ryan <quad4fiero@webzone.net>
> They want a class that they can play in that is fair and equitable to all.
> Everybody, each and every competitor wants that!! Just so they
> have a chance, even if they do not have the "car of the month" (or
> whatever drives the incessant changing of class structure in this
> organization)..
The key question is: at what level? I maintain that at the regional level,
competition is more diverse than Team.Net discussions indicate. That's
based on unscientific observation, but lots of it, and in many different
places.
At the national level, this is going to be hard to do. The turmoil within
the stock classes every few years is a *result* of trying to keep everyone
as competitive as possible. Look at HS, for example -- many of the fast
cars in there now originally came from ES. Why did they move? Because the
SCAC and SEB, in an effort to keep them competitive, moved them down as ES
gained newer, faster cars which were not quite fast enough for faster
classes. Which, of course, were gaining faster cars and pushing their
bottom feeders down to keep *them* competitive....
> They want a classing system that is so stable that they
> can continue to have equality and fun 2 or 3 years down the road,
> entirely until their 6 year note is paid!! They do not especially wish
> to trade cars annually in order to stay "in there".
Can't argue there....I've never sold a car I raced before it was eight years
old. And that only happened once.
> Example - I had a 1993 Probe GT. Remember them :-). I ran this
> car in GS whenever my "P" car was broke - which was often - or, at
> certain sites where the "P" car was not any fun to drive. It was a
winner
> for a couple years.
For more than "a couple" of years! If you're willing to consider the MX-6
as essentially the same car (I know there are some suspension tuning
differences), the back of the rule book shows they won National titles from
1993 to 1997 -- that's *six* years.
> Then, the 3.8 Camaro V6 came along, and then the
> turbo DSM's in GS. How competitive was this car in 1998, when my
> 60 month note paid out and it was time to trade? How competitive in
> GS is the Probe GT now??
The 3.8 Camaros did well in GS -- but never took a National win from MX-6s.
So they were clearly not class-killers. The turbo DSMs had been in GS for
years, and were widely regarded as too heavy and suffering from too much
turbo lag to be competitive. That includes the generation which provided
the basis for 1998's winner -- IIRC, the last generation of DSMs debuted in
1995. In 1998, several people started playing with them and found there
*were* ways to make them fast. And MX-6s weren't exactly banished to the
back of the class, even then.
During the Type R grousing last year, I posted the following comment:
"I did a quick check of G Stock results from the Nationals and
Tours for the last *three* years and found that the cars changed, but to a
great extent, the drivers did not. For drivers who stayed in the class over
that time, the same names kept popping up in the top spots...Endicott,
Goeke, Bauer, McIver, Bellamy, Birchard, Zimmerman....
Now having the top drivers in a class go for the hot car of the moment is a
hazard of running in Stock -- but does the car make the driver or the driver
make the car? I saw no evidence of a mid-pack driver or backmarker getting
the car-of-the-moment and overwhelming the front-runners.
The heck with the cars -- we should reclass Endicott, Goeke, Bauer,
McIver...."
A year later, I see no reason to change my opinion. From my own local
experience, Flat Rock cars are still pretty fast -- and while I'm not
nationally ranked, I'm not slow, either.
> They (the competitor) want a system that allows them to grow their car
> with their skills - in the SCCA system it would be directly from Stock to
> Street Touring,(or is it Street Modified - - I get so confused!!) to
Street
> Prepared, to Prepared, to Modified. There is no way that can happen,
> with ANY marque, in the current SCCA classing system.
It's impossible because the categories grew from two different directions --
S to SP (or ST) to (now) SM starts with a stock street car. Prepared starts
with Production road racers -- it's sort of an island. Modified does both,
depending on which class you're looking at. The desire to develop a
progressive system based on street cars *is* at the core of the ST and SM
movements.
> I will stop right here and add "ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL" This
> sport is about having fun, and honing skills. But if one shows up in a
> Neon in ES on day-one, he will probably be able to beat the competent
> competitor with years of experience in an ES 2.5L Fiero after 2 or three
> events. That, sir, is not the driver, it is inequitable classing!!
Couldn't say for that example -- my ES experience was largely getting
whipped by Alan McConnell's VWs. When I moved to DS in 1992, I didn't feel
overwhelmed at the regional or divisional level by the introduction of DOHC
Neons a few years later, although they rapidly dominated the Nationals, and
I haven't felt overwhelmed by any of the cars in GS since moving there.
> No, I don't advocate 100 classes. I advocate fewer catagories, and fewer
> classes. I advocate a system that uses such criteria as power to weight
> (torque is a factor, as it is also power), wheelbase, tire size, wheel
> track, and suspension type (adjustability would be a factor) dictating who
runs
> against whom. A simple math formula could do most of that!!
I'm not so sure you'll end up with significantly different results. Some
cars will be shuffled, but I don't think you'll narrow the performance
spread within classes by much.
> One will not have to run a heavier car with less power against a lighter
car
> with more power because of brand name.
Name where this has happened -- and include not just power-to-weight, but
torque-to-weight, suspension, track, and wheel width. Show how all these
factors combined to instantly make a car obsolete. And don't bring up the
Probe, unless you can show a radical difference in performance relative to
the MX-6, because it hasn't happened that way.
> One would not have to watch a
> car with everything else pretty equal come in with a turbo (the DSM?) to
> the class, etc. One would not have to be made instant underdog by a stroke
> of the pen.
Like I said at the top, *at the regional level,* (from experience in several
parts of the country) this hasn't happened -- especially in GS. And at the
national level, the car choice of top drivers determines the car of the
moment as much or more than the car itself.
> I am working up a class structure - - for another organization - - that
will
> address these issues. Based on entirely different criteria, it seems, than
> the SCCA uses. It doesn't even have the same catagories. That, in itself,
makes
> it an easier task. Not to say it will be used, but it is a proposal none
the
> less.
Cool. That's how the whole ST and SM business got started -- and the
inertia of the existing structure hasn't killed them. There's always a
shortage of good ideas.
> When I have completed my proposal, I will write an article to the NA
Pylon,
> under the heading "Fighting City Hall" and share it with you (if the
Kelly's
> see fit to print it).
Oh, yeah...John and Pat *like* to print things that stir up debate. Better
create a special bit bucket to sort out the responses, though! :)
Jamie
'92 Prelude Si (still resident in the most interesting stock class)
Speed Demon Racing
http://www.mindspring.com/~jsculerati/sdr
|