....>
> > If a Street Touring car wants to run PAX class,
> they need R tires to be
> > competitive. Not required of course, but good for
> one's times.
.. well this is exactly my point, but we seem to be
reasoning with the same data and drawing different
conclusions. STS is a legitimate national class (well
- almost..) , not a local class like "street-tire"
The current ruling isn't quite the same as saying
"we're not going to recongize B-Stock - all you guys
can run in S-Stock instead", but it's darn close.
> >
> > So I don't get "honoring" the STS PAX. What
Well, we aren't using the STS pax for STS cars. That's
what I mean by "not honoring".
> > We had no ST Street Tire entrants in Round 1. We
> had one I saw yesterday,
> > and he was a first-timer, I think. Who would
> really be affected by this
I have an educated guess that at least 50% of the cars
running STR are on street tires, i.e. are really STS
entrants. Given that an STS class exists nationally
(it's as valid as SM or STR, which we *do* recognize)
- I can think of no reason to enter an STS car in STR.
It *is* like running a B-Stock car in CSP.
> > issue?
> > Are you planning to run ST- Street Tire? I guess
> it sort of bugs me to
> > have
> > people make us do work ...
I think everyone appreciates the work you do Jerry,
the website is top-notch and the results appear very
quickly. I remember how well you took the heat after
allowing 4 runs at a 3 run event you chaired last year
- a case of common sense triumphing over a steering
cttee decision - and watched you handle an irate
newbie with an expired drivers license very well. I
certainly don't want to annoy you or unnecessarily
burden you with work, but sooner or later someone else
is going to point out that out of all the classes SCCA
has, STS is the one we don't support. It's an
unnecessary loose end.
My interest: I expect to run STS if it is a separate
class and have invested many $ to this end so far. I
also think it is flat wrong that we don't recgonize
STS, whether or not I run it.
Craig
|