Michael O'Neal wrote:
>Which was a stupid answer by the SCCA, IMNSHO.
Let's not start down this road ("SCCA discriminates against MY
car and helps out everybody else") again. It leads nowhere.
The rules are the rules. Allowed modifications apply equally to
_all_ cars in Stock and SP. Some allowed modifications are of no
help to some cars. There's no guarantee that mods you might want
to do to _your_ car will be allowed in any given Category. That's
life.
>There isn't an early
>(Pre-carrera) 911 owner that wouldn't upgrade to the hydraulic
chain
>tensioners. If you don't do it, it's a good way to make a $6000
>paperweight out of your engine.
The earlier tensioners weren't especially prone to premature
failure, they just wore out with some regularity. And replacing
them was a relatively big job. So, some owners tended to neglect
that item, often to their ultimate chagrin.
>Racing around cones isn't worth that,
Then don't. We'll do our best to go on without you.
;<)
>This is the same governing body that completely eliminated UD/BD
in STS >because of a single car...the 88-91 Honda Civic.
NO. Hell no. U/B in ST was eliminated because lots of competitors
in the class whined about it after it had been in place for three
years, and because the STAC recommended the change.
>If
>early 911's were classed correctly (Like in BSP instead of ASP,
for
>example), more drivers would run them.
No they wouldn't. It takes too much money to build one, and the
finished product is worth too little on the open market. Ever
seen an SP-optimized early 911? The things you have to do to make
one competitive have the added effect of severely reducing their
value as vintage Porsches.
Jay
|