Howdy,
On Thu, 13 May 2004 Stand0nIt@aol.com wrote:
> A few questions for Mr. Thatcher, Mr. Andy and Mr. Mitchell 1. In view
> of the fact that nearly zero of the nationally competitive SP cars are
> streeted on any kind of a regular basis is is a bad thing for a category
> called "Street Touring" to shy away from from the concept of Streetable
> SP and stay closer to bolt on stock?
I'd say "Streetable SP" and "bolt on stock" are two ways of saying the
same thing, depending on who you talk to... Afterall, UD/BD is a bolt on
process, or its not legal. :-)
> 2. As it is my understanding the original vision of STS was to be a
> strictly bolt on mod class. STU (Now SM)was created to provide a home
> for more radical modifications. Do you believe that junkyard engine
> swaps (as a means of being competitive rather than simple economics)
> belong in the ST concept?
>From the same model line? Yes. Its totally common for a neon owner
(example) to go get another neon motor from the junkyard without worrying
about which year it came from.
> 3. ST was designed to attracted new members (whether or not it has is a
> different debate). Given that UD/BD generally helps older cars more
> than new due to availability, weight and price of parts is it good for
> the club as a whole to give anymore of an advantage to out of date cars
> that are already dominating the class? (Close you eyes and try to see a
> frankincivic being featured in Sport and Compact Car... Sneak Preview--
> He dropped a D16A in this little bad boy and boosted the power all the
> way to 108!)
"designed to" and "is" are two different things. What happened to the
argument that UD/BD is the boogeyman that other cars would use to dominate
anyway? Seems like we're back to that frankencivic example already. :-)
> And Finally...
> Why is it that this is such a hot button for the three of you? Do you
> have plans to compete in ST?
On a personal level it annoys me because I had to take parts (an x brace)
off my STX car ('93 325is, done on the cheap). On a theoretical level it
annoys me because a hugely sweeping rule change was made because someone
read the rules, took advantage of them to create a _very_ slightly better
vehicle, and rather than accept that people changed the rules to make it
illegal, throwing away all sorts of "intended" allowances in the process.
Because, no matter what you say, an old civic weighed 30 lbs less than
another old civic.
Which I think was stupid. And, since this is a standard internet mailing
list, when the topic comes up I'll say so. Why do _you_ feel such a need
to defend the decision?
Mark
|