I hate to break up this communist train of thought, but exactly how would
you police who does and doesn't tow their car to an event?
Dave
"I used to tow my stock car with a gas guzzling SUV"
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jay Mitchell" <jemitchell@compuserve.com>
To: <autox@autox.team.net>
Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2001 9:35 AM
Subject: Re: SM2 Stuff (long)
> This controversy is starting up yet again, even as the advocates of the
new classes seem to be getting exactly what they've been demanding. I've got
a few thoughts to offer that I hope will help to put things in perspective.
>
> Let me preface this by saying that, if the new classes are sufficiently
well-subscribed, I'm not against them. The *apparent* motivation that some
of you have for wanting these classes is, however, somewhat naive. Here are
some facts to ponder:
>
> 1. None of the classes or Categories in Solo II *requires* that you
trailer your car to an event. Quite the contrary, that's at the driver's
discretion. I know of one National Champion in a Prepared class that drove
his competition car to every event, at least through 1993. It still had most
of its interior at that time, BTW.
>
> 2. Regardless of the rules for a given class, serious autocrossers will
take maximum advantage of those rules to build a car that is optimized for
autocross in preference to street use. That is nothing but common sense. The
two sets of optima are mutually exclusive to a large extent. In Stock, a car
built in this fashion will likely still be tolerable, if not ideal, for
routine street use. In any class where ride heights and spring rates (in
addition to damping rates) are not restricted (i.e., in every Category but
Stock), taking maximum advantage of the rules to build the best possible
autox car will result in a car that is extremely unpleasant and impractical
(for most of us) to operate on the street.This is not in any way due to the
"intent" of the rules, but rather the intent of the car builder. If you're
not willing to seriously compromise the streetability of your non-Stock car
in pursuit of the best possible autox setup, you *will* put yourself at a
disadvantage to an!
> yone who has that willingness, and no amount of self-righteous complaining
(or attempts to legislate via the rules) will make the slightest difference
in the situation.
>
> 3. There is not now, nor has there ever been, nor will there ever be, a
set of rules that can ensure that the modifications an individual might make
to his(her) car for a purpose other than autox will allow that car to be
competitive if the owner decides to try our sport. See 2. above. If you're
not specifically targeting autox as you modify a car, what do you think are
the odds that the changes you make will be maximally effective for that
purpose? I claim they're close to zero.
>
> 4. As the new classes develop, the cars that eventually rise to the top
will be cars that have been specifically developed for autox competition.
Their spring rates/damping rates/ride heights will be entirely unsuitable
for routine street use, and their cost will be sufficiently high that many
owners will opt to trailer their cars solely to avoid wearing out (and
risking damage to) their investement in time, money, and sweat. If the
ridiculous "street licensed" requirement remains in SM, the serious
developers that choose that class will simply get tags for their trailered
cars - it ain't hard to do - and, otherwise, SM will have nothing to
distinguish it from SP (or even STS after awhile). I don't see any of the
above as a problem for Solo II, but apparently some of you will see it as a
problem wrt your interpretation of the "intent" of the rules. My advice: get
used to it: it's been that way for a long time, and it ain't gonna change.
The rules have nothing to do with it, !
> it's the nature of the human competitive spirit.
>
> Jay
|