Clipped from various (of the 200+) posts waiting for me when I got home
today...
> Cars get moved based
> on performance and letter writing campaigns. Miata's are very
> prolific and have a large voice. The other cars in the class are small
in number
> and were over run by a loud voice of Miata owners.
When the Miata 1.6l move to CS was still just under consideration last
year, I actually asked Andy Bettencourt about how many letters they'd
gotten so far about the move. He said (and this is as close to a quote
as I can dredge up now that a year has gone by), "Five--and that's a
flood by SCCA standards. All in favor of the move."
I suspect there are more than 5 of us driving other cars in the class.
*I* didn't write a letter (and wouldn't change that decision now even if
I could). Did you? In all fairness, I don't think the Miata is the
Fiero's problem in CS. I think you would also need to boot the second
gen MR2s and the Porsche 924S (and the 914, which is proposed to come to
CS in the restructuring). Then what would you have? A Fiero spec class?
> We HAVE two
> classes that older cars are at the top...CS and what will be the 'new
GS' of
> Class 8.
Let's not forget that the RX7TT that has dominated SS is '93-'95--hardly
car-of-the-month vintage, either.
> They want a class that they can play in that is fair and equitable to
> all. Everybody, each and every competitor wants that!!
The only way to have a class in which every competitor in every car can
compete on a level playing field is to have a class for every make,
model, and configuration (e.g., Miata 1.6l in one class; 1.8 from '94 to
'98 in another, '99-'00 in another [I guess the 10AE needs its own class
since its a 6 sp], and the dreaded '01 in yet another). Do we really
want that?
> 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!!
1984 + 6 = 1990. 1988 + 6 = 1994. Even if this argument were the
perfect one (and I wouldn't argue that it is), the time frame is more
than past. The Fieros are between all over a dozen years old. CS *is*
the class for older, less expensive sports cars, but you cannot expect
the technology that was extant that long ago to continue to remain
competitive.
>> It's simpler than that. Expire Stock class eligibility after 7-10
years.
Oh please. Everything 1993 or older is automatically booted? *That's*
the way to get a Corvette to win Super Stock, to have an MR2 turbo not be
competitive in AS, and to get rid of CS altogether. There are other
examples as well (Sam Strano and Lynne Rothney-Kozlak did all right in
their 3rd gen Camaros before last year's ProSeries ProSolo [which lumped
FS with AS] made other rides/classes more attractive).
This proposal would guarantee higher income level participants in Stock,
because you'd be forced to buy a newer car--not just to be competitive,
but to play at all. Not my idea of grassroots motorsports, here.
> [possible classing formula:] HP + Torque + [Wheel width(inches)X10] /
[Weight/10] + Wheelbase + Width
> So, a larger number is better than a small one. The "X10" and "/10"
are used
> to change the relative importance of each item. The problem comes in
> determining what those relative importances are.
> Then you have to factor in configuration. Is Mid-engine really best?
I can
> cite lots of Front engine/rear drive cars, and Heck, even throw in the
FWD
> Integra Type R to liven up that discussion.
> You'll need factors for things like limited slips, too.
Hmm, and don't forget things like ability to get negative camber. And
even the seemingly straightforward items may not be so. Take wheel width
for instance. In my old Shelby Charger, they slapped bigger wheels on an
Omni 024 chassis and crammed in a 5 speed. They did not do anything to
increase clearance, so they had to modify the turning circle. The
Charger had a fatter/wider turning radius than my '81 F250 Ford Truck.
(I am *not* kidding.) And still the tires rubbed in tight corners.
Stock size tires.
> > Establish a "vintage" class, containing all cars 15 years old or
older,
> > stock configuration only.
> Actually, there are plenty of regions I've run in which have tried
vintage
> classes -- but for some reason, they never really seem to take off. I
can't
> explain it, just observe.
I've observed this, too.
[This directed, I think, to Andy Bettencourt--near as I can tell from the
header:]
> Oh, I have had another thought. You, yourself are an excellent driver.
Why
> don't YOU field an '88 Fiero 2.5 in ES this year at the Nationals, and
see
> if you can get anywhere near the trophies. Then I will talk with you
about
> classing after.
> BTW, what is it you are driving this year, anyway?? One of the "cars of
the
> moment" perhaps?
Andy, forgive me for sharing something you said in a backchannel e-mail,
but Andy drives the car he does because he likes the car and the people
in the class he runs with. Yes, he thinks the car is competitive, and
yes, I think he probably likes to win. Is that some kind of crime? He
doesn't have a "flavor of the moment" unless you consider the moment
reaching back quite a few years (he's an RX7TT driver). *AND* note that
he is on the same SCAC that proposed putting that current SS champion car
in the new Ultra Stock/Class 1/whatever it ends up being called (along
with the Viper, the 996, 991 Turbo, 930, ZR1, new M3 and M5, and the
Lotus Esprit Turbo). For this sort of careful consideration of classes
and responding to e-mails publicly and privately, he gets this kind of
flak? Please. I'm very glad right now that the SCCA powers that be
consider me way to much of a newcomer to be eligible for any national
sorts of committees. Whew.
> I simply made a bad choice and now must deal with it. That's the
breaks.
> There are some cars that will never be "the" car to have in any class.
WHAT?!? SCCA didn't make you buy the car you chose? The SCAC isn't
personally and maliciously responsible because your car is *not* "the"
car to have in some class? [Sarcasm off.] Someone on team.net is taking
personal responsibility for a car choice he made. How refreshing.
mlc
'91 MR2 NA
-----anything after this, I didn't write, and don't necessarily agree
with----
________________________________________________________________
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
|