Well, I *do* think the SEB, over the years, lost the handle on SP. But that
was then, this is now. SP was a viable concept when it was born and it
remains so today, even though that concept has changed (evolved?)
considerably. SP ain't broke, it just fails to provide that natural
progression from Stock to Prepared. I think it can fairly be said ... so
what?
Those who have gone Stock > SP and then want to go to P will likely have to
undo a few things they put on the car. Maybe they will have to put those old
carbs back on. So what? If they decide to make the SP > P leap, there is a
TON of stuff they will have to do/undo even if the rules were strictly
progressive. Just think of all that interior they get to rip out! Full-race
cage they get to put in. Doo dah, doo dah.
I do agree that ST is what SP should have been. As you noted, the two camps
have opposing goals. Both goals are reasonable progressions, just different.
Neither is wrong. Both have sufficient proponents to make viable classes.
Neither needs a major fix. There needs to be no attempt to do so.
As for the subgroup you noted -- that group exists everywhere. Always there
is "Hey, I can make my car faster if I am allowed to..." and he has the $$$$
to do it so wants the rules changed to allow it. Those of us who do not have
the same budget, or who would rather spend the money we DO have on stuff not
done yet, oppose him. Such proposals are merely ways to spend money. If he
stays with his old setup, he has the same old setup the rest of us have
(presumably), and so if he wants to make his car faster he is challenged to
drive better. Otherwise, he just forces us all to spend the same money and,
guess what, he is no faster relatively speaking than he was before. Oh, he
found a second, but so did his class leader who went out and spent the same
money (and maybe spent it smarter).
I think "SP-lite" = ST. It's already done, but perhaps smarter.
I don't like the idea of SP cars being put into P because:
1. There is already a place for SP cars: SP
2. It adds another ruleset to a category that already is confused with 3-4
different rulesets.
3. It is just not needed.
--Rocky
----- Original Message -----
From: <dg50@daimlerchrysler.com>
To: <autox@autox.team.net>
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2001 8:42 AM
Subject: Re: Proposal for SP cars to compete in P ???
> "Rocky Entriken" <rocky@tri.net>
>
> > The stupid thing about SP is that the SEB let the category get away
from
> > them.
>
> I don't know is this is the right analysis Rocky - although the rest of
> what you have to say is pretty well right on the money.
>
> The issue as I see it is that there's another issue buried in here, and it
> centres on the definition of "Street"
>
> There is one camp that feels that anything that runs on DOT tires and is
> based off a production car starting point is a "street" car - as opposed
to
> a "race" car that runs on slicks and started life as a pile of steel
> tubing.
>
> Then there's the other camp, that wants "street" to mean "street legal",
as
> in "I can drive it off the course and go straight home"
>
> The two camps have opposing goals.
>
> The first is more concerned about performance. What matters to this camp
is
> getting the car to go as fast as it can within the rules that define the
> class.
>
> The second class is more concerned about economics. They don't want to
have
> to deal with changing tires (that wear out quickly) buying trailers and
the
> trucks that support them, and so on and so forth. They expect that the
> majority of cars will be driven to the event under their own power. There
> is also occasionally some handwaving about "the kids on the street" being
> able to compete without changing their car.
>
> There is also a sub-group within the second class, the guys I call the "I
> want to do all the mods I'm prepared to do, but want to ban anything I'm
> not prepared to do" gang - but thankfully, they are in the minority.
>
> Now the interesting thing is that the guys in the "performance uber alles"
> camp are actually just as concerned about keeping costs down as the second
> camp, but just to a different degree. It is in fact a good deal cheaper to
> build a Street Prepared (or Street Mod) car than it is a real Prepared or
> Mod car, mostly because you're working with a production car chassis that
> isn't allowed to be modified much. It takes less in the way of facilities
> to build an SP car, and you can "creep up" to the full preparation levels,
> if you want. Yes, the sum total can get pretty expensive, but you can
> spread that cost out over time. (and the nature of development in fact
> forces you to, to a large extent)
>
> Daddio, I note, drove his DSP car to Nationals this year, and did just
> fine. ;)
>
> The core problem is that there is no good way to reconcile these two
camps,
> and the root of this is that there is no universal definition of "street
> legal" or even of "street car". Basing rules off laws is a REALLY bad
idea,
> because those laws are not the same state to state or country to country,
> and they CHANGE, often mid season. And if you pick some arbitrary level of
> modification as representing a "street car", you will find people who will
> think that you've either gone too far (the "SP cars are too stiff for the
> street!" people) or not far enough (pretty well every single turbocharged
> SP car owner)
>
> This is not at all unique to autocross, by the way. The local speed shop
> holds a "fastest street car in Windsor" race every year, and you should
> hear those guys argue over what is appropriate for a "street car". This
> year, there was a HUGE row over port induction nitrous systems - plate
> systems were deemed OK, but if you drilled and tapped the 8 holes for the
> nitrous injectors, to some people you had crossed over the line....
>
> Anyway, I don't think Street Prepared is broken. I think it has a rule or
> two that could bear re-evaluation, but on the whole, I think it is Just
> Right. We now have a nice, smooth progression from Stock->Street
> Prepared->Street Modified, based off a common rules set, that allows for
> varying levels of modified, street-driven cars, and a clear sense of how
> one gets from one to the other. That's as near Utopia as you'll ever see.
>
> One might be able to make the case for an "SP Lite" - something that
allows
> more mods than stock, but less than SP - but I don't think so. I don't
> think there's enough competitors to go around to populate it. STS's
success
> is based on one thing, and one thing only - non-R-compound tires, and as
> such it is dangling by the thinnest of threads. Once a tire manufacturer
> decides to make a 130 treadwear-stamped R compound, that game is over, and
> STR (the alternative) has fallen on its face.
>
> DG
>
>
>
>
>
****************************************************************************
>
> The information contained in this transmission, which may be
> confidential and proprietary, is only for the intended recipients.
> Unauthorized use is strictly prohibited. If you receive this
> transmission in error, please notify me immediately by telephone
> or electronic mail and confirm that you deleted this transmission
> and the reply from your electronic mail system.
>
****************************************************************************
>
> /// autox@autox.team.net mailing list
> ///
> /// To unsubscribe send a plain text message to majordomo@autox.team.net
> /// with nothing in it but
> ///
> /// unsubscribe autox
> ///
> /// or try http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
> ///
/// autox@autox.team.net mailing list
///
/// To unsubscribe send a plain text message to majordomo@autox.team.net
/// with nothing in it but
///
/// unsubscribe autox
///
/// or try http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
///
|