Dennis
Your reply was very intriguing, even fun. I agree with your assessment for
the most part (not necessarily agreeing that's where it all should have
gone, but there it is nonetheless).
On Stock -- Just because the newbie may line up alongside John Ames doesn't
mean the rules have to allow the newbie to be outspent by megabucks to do
so. IOW. Stock rules should remain closer to stock. Those Monroe Sensi-Traks
or Sears Roadmasters, available to anyone at the corner parts store are one
thing. The $800 remote-reservoir Penskes something else entirely. IOW, if
Ames wants to be king of a Stock class, he should do so limited by very
minimal allowances allowed.
And, BTW, Mr. Ames is quite capable of doing just that! It is good, in fact,
that people like him do populate Stock because they are the benchmark to
which others aspire -- just that it should be a talent benchmark not a
wallet benchmark. Folks like Ames will do whatever the rules allow, and are
expected to. The fault isn't Ames, it is the rules allowance (and Ames used
only by way of example here as a top-level driver -- not picking on him in
the least!)
And as for YOU! -- "I have programmed my own engine management, I do my own
datalogging, I rebuild and revalve my own shocks..." <sigh> well I've had to
deal with the likes of you forever -- people with the talent to build their
own speed and then drive it well. I don't have that talent. I have to buy my
speed and then figure out how to drive it. As a result, I think I always
give a little away. But then, those with less talent always give something
away. Whaaaaa. That's a backhanded compliment, Dennis. I am always a bit in
awe of those who understand their car as well as you. As long as you are
within the parameters of the rules, whatever advantage you derive from your
own talent (and hard work applying it!) is earned and deserved.
> And I'm far from unique - lots of modern-day Solo competitors are
operating
> at a technical level that would have made them Indy crew chiefs in the
late
> 70's/early 80's.
What a scary, and wonderful, observation! And some from solo HAVE gone on to
crew chief situations, or at least crew (Todd Bowland, TC Kline, Greg
Fordahl, etc.)
> That's because Prepared is, was, and probably always will be an "island".
> Prepared isn't part of the "normal progression"; it is for cars (at least
> notionally) prepared to the GCR.
Actually no. When the only categories were Stock-Prep-Mod, (and only two
Mod classes, mostly production-based) there was a definite progression. When
they stuck SP in the screwup was giving SP things not allowed in Prep.
That's what made Prep an island.
But that was then, this is now, and your island metaphor is probably the
best model to use for today. P is its own animal, mostly unrelated to
everything else.
> If one wanted to re-org, the logical progression is:
> S->SP->SM->M for production-based, Solo-specific cars
> AM for bespoke Solo "formula cars"
Maybe S > ST > SP > SM > M -- with P as its own island. And...
> > Thus, there is really no such thing as a "prepared" car by
> > definition any more because what is true of AP is not true of CP and
> > neither is true of FP.
>
> True enough... but I see that as a problem that needs to be rectified, not
> a future direction.
I heartily agree, but I fear remedy is not even in the thought process at
this point. Whether I like it or not, that does seem to be the future
direction of P.
As always, Dennis, you stir the thought process. Thanks.
--Rocky
----- Original Message -----
From: <dg50@daimlerchrysler.com>
To: <autox@autox.team.net>
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 8:56 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: SEB-Update/Backdate in STS, STX
> "Rocky Entriken" <rocky@tri.net> wrote:
>
> > I agree with Eric, Stock allows too much ($800 shocks? Gimme a break!).
> SP
> > started life as simply "bolt-on options allowed" but got out of hand to
> > where it is no longer really streetable. ST fills the gap, but with only
> two
> > classes -- and for the life of me I still cannot really explain the
> > difference between S and X. SM is its own clever animal and I think I
> > finally figured out the difference between SM and SM2 is SM2 is for
> > 2-seaters.
>
> A lot of issues here, huh Rocky? And for what it's worth, I feel your
pain.
>
> But yet... things are the way they are for very good reasons.
>
> Let's have a look:
>
> 1) Stock and the $800 shock
>
> What we have here is a logical extension of three things
>
> a) The Stock rules must make some accomodation for "wear parts" and their
> typical aftermarket replacements. This is to allow normal maintainence to
> happen on what are supposed to be (or at least, allowed to be) street
> driven cars.
>
> In other words, when you replace a worn-out OEM shock with a Monroe
> Sensi-Trak or a Sears Roadmaster, that shouldn't make the car illegal.
>
> b) Our sport is very integrated from a "career progression" perspective,
> which keeps the casual competitor in contact with the more hard-core.
>
> As you progress up the ladder from Regional, through Divisional, National,
> and finally Pro, one can realistically expect that cars will be better
> prepared and more speciallized for competition. At the Regional level,
> probably 90% of the cars in Stock are street cars first, race cars second.
> At the National and Pro level, that number is probably more like 40%.
>
> But here's the thing - in NASCAR, the NHRA, the various road racing
series,
> you typically don't have "the big stars" mixing it up with the newbies or
> the more casual competitors. If you go out to your local dragstrip with
> your street driver, you won't be lining up against John Force. But it's
> entirely possible to take your street-driven Corvette, and find yourself
> lined up against John Ames.
>
> This is both a blessing and a curse - the curse being that the rules need
> to apply to both sets of constituants, given that the same rulebook covers
> both of them.
>
> c) Technology, and especially knowledge, is trickling down from the higher
> echelons of the racing world.
>
> Consider this Rocky - I have programmed my own engine management, I do my
> own datalogging, I rebuild and revalve my own shocks, and I do so based on
> my own data models. I use pretty much the same techniques and technologies
> as a modern Trans-Am team (which is itself standard CART practice from 10
> years ago and standard F1 practice from 15-20 years ago) It is to a
smaller
> scale, and it takes longer, but ultimately, it's the same stuff.
>
> And I'm far from unique - lots of modern-day Solo competitors are
operating
> at a technical level that would have made them Indy crew chiefs in the
late
> 70's/early 80's.
>
> Stuff that was unimaginable as recently as 5 years ago is now commonplace.
>
> > Much simpler when you had basically four levels of prep -- Stock, SP, P
> and
> > M -- but unfortunately from the get-go when they made SP they neglected
> to
> > make it a logical steppingstone between S and P. So that, even early on,
> you
> > had to undo things (notably carbs) to make an SP car a P car.
>
> That's because Prepared is, was, and probably always will be an "island".
> Prepared isn't part of the "normal progression"; it is for cars (at least
> notionally) prepared to the GCR.
>
> One could make a strong case that BM, CM, and FM should actually be
> "Prepared" classes.
>
> If one wanted to re-org, the logical progression is:
>
> S->SP->SM->M for production-based, Solo-specific cars
> AM for bespoke Solo "formula cars"
> Prepared for anything designed to be a GCR-legal car
>
> > Thus, there is really no such thing as a "prepared" car by
> > definition any more because what is true of AP is not true of CP and
> neither
> > is true of FP.
>
> True enough... but I see that as a problem that needs to be rectified, not
> a future direction.
>
> DG
/// unsubscribe/change address requests to majordomo@autox.team.net or try
/// http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo
/// Partial archives at http://www.team.net/archive
|