> way to include them. Why not the 'Stock' cars too?
>
> Finally, I submit that those that would be most affected are not
> present
> here to discuss. They are *elsewhere*. There is a huge untapped
> market
> of potential competitors who would prefer the Stock option (this is
> my
> opinion, and one that is believed strongly). Say, that could be the
I did notice that you didn't respond to the e-mail that I sent
you Scot. But I am in stock and and I AM here.
What you propose would NOT affect me since my car is
100% factory stock with nothing at all added.
My car is only 1 year old tho. When my shocks go I might
get the Bilsteins revalved to be adjustable, or go with Koni's.
Brakes HP Plus when the stock ones wear out. I know a lot of
guys with 99's are running a larger front sway bar and it helps.
I don't see where your proposal would save me or anyone else
money when it came time to replace various components and
if someone thinks they can beat me with $4,000 shocks
that's fine. I'd still revalve my Bilsteins but if I had $4K I'd spend
the rest of the money fixing the nut behind the wheel.
$4K would buy a lot of driving school time.
But there is no way I want to have to buy stock brake pads
stock shocks, etc... Not when aftermarket is cheaper and
better. Also consider how difficult this would be and how much
work a protest would become.
If stock is STOCK then at the Nationals more time would
be wasted on protests of what is and isn't stock. I don't see what
you propose as a viable option not with tons of cars that are used
and within current class rules yet would need money spent to bring
them back into "Stock Spec" as you propose it.
What you propose only works for brand new cars before anything
has worn out, after 2 years you start replacing things and I really
don't want to be in CSP for shocks and an air filter.
Steve Bernard
Red '99 Miata (B-Stock)
NER Region (Novice Class)
mailto:Solo-2@juno.com
________________________________________________________________
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
|