dg50@daimlerchrysler.com writes:
<snip>the current SP rules do not reflect the current state of street-driven
vehicles as driven on the street, and as such, the current crop of actual SP
competitors have old cars and the category is not attracting much in the way
of new cars - this is not a good schenario for growth<snip>
(sarcasm alert)
Yeah, good point. We wouldn't want to attract anyone wanting to drive an
"old" car. If people can't afford to buy a new car and put 20 years worth of
development into it before it gets old, then they aren't worth considering
as part of the big picture.
I agree with Dennis and the "self-proclaimed moron" guy! Yeah, woo-hoo!
;-)
(serious mode on)
Dennis, I think the concern with too many classes is that it is confusing
and time consuming to have to manage several so many sets of rules and keep
new and old cars classified appropriately according to those rules. All your
plan does is remove one class heading from the rulebook and replace it with
one class heading and two subheadings for the seperate rulesets under which
cars can be prepared. You have addressed the symptom, but not the problem.
BTW, I calculated the average age of the top finishing cars in Stock, SP,
Prepared, and SM in 2000 (I included the ladies classes in my calculations,
BTW) and an interesting pattern emerged.
- Stock category average age is a little over 5 years old
- SP is a little over 14 years old
- Prepared is a little over 23 years old
- SM is 5.5 years old.
It appears to me that it takes, on average, 9 years longer to develop a car
to the point it can compete at the National level of SP than stock category
(makes sense, more mods allowed, more things to try, more combinations to
compare, etc.). Makes sense to me.
It appears that it takes 18 years longer, on average, to develop a car that
can compete at the National level of Prepared than stock category (again,
makes sense based on the level of modifications allowed).
So as the extent of modifications increases, it takes longer to develop a
car. Makes sense.
A SM car seems to require only a a few months more time to develop than a
stock car, but does that make sense? Given the variety of modifications and
vehicles allowed in the category, does it make sense that 3 months worth of
development is all that is required to maximize a car under the rules? If
you count its provisional year of existence, SM is only a year old. I would
venture to guess that (with all due respect to Rafferty and Sharp) the cars
competing in this class have not yet been given enough time to fully exploit
the performance potential allowed by the rules. In the next few years, as
the cars reach the limits of performance that the rules allow, I would
venture to guess that you will see the average age of the winning cars
increase.
As Jay so cuttingly wrote, let's see what happens as SM matures before we
begin making any snap comparisons between it and the established categories.
IMHO, FWIW...
J. Brett Howell
#113 FSP (a 9 year-old Honda Civic...I figure I have 5 more years before I
have to begin getting depressed about not winning ;-)
|