It'll get worse until it gets better. :)
--Pat K
----------
>From: "james creasy" <james@thevenom.net>
>To: "Pat Kelly" <lollipop487@attbi.com>, <kirkm@zeta-idt.com>, "Anthony
Tabacco" <atabacco@california.com>, <ba-autox@autox.team.net>
>Subject: Re: Stock Shock Chalk Talk
>Date: Thu, Aug 8, 2002, 10:46 AM
>
>> Couldn't the price cap be adjusted to the cost of living index each year?
>
> good idea, but i recommend using the "Cost of Racing" index instead. its
> about 40% a year for me.
>
> -james c
> OSP - Owner Soon Poor
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Pat Kelly" <lollipop487@attbi.com>
>
>> Couldn't the price cap be adjusted to the cost of living index each year?
>> Just a suggestion.
>> --Pat K
>>
>> ----------
>> >From: "Kirk Meline" <kirkm@zeta-idt.com>
>> >To: "Anthony Tabacco" <atabacco@california.com>,
> <ba-autox@autox.team.net>
>> >Subject: RE: Stock Shock Chalk Talk
>> >Date: Thu, Aug 8, 2002, 10:14 AM
>> >
>>
>> > Hi Anthony
>> >
>> > Your version is definitely much easier to read and understand. The
> price
>> > limit thing is questionable though. I hope that your kind of thinking
> could
>> > be applied to the Street Prepared classes too. How can I compete with
> cars
>> > that have $1500 a corner shocks and struts and have 350rwhp as well as
> have
>> > 315 or 335 tires sticking out of the wheel wells. Those type of race
> parts
>> > should be left in the Prepared and Modified classes really. People
> might
>> > complain that it really only makes a small difference in track time.
> Add
>> > all those small changes up and the rich guys have much faster cars. My
> two
>> > cents.
>> >
>> > Kirk
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: owner-ba-autox@autox.team.net
>> > [mailto:owner-ba-autox@autox.team.net]On Behalf Of Anthony Tabacco
>> > Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2002 9:30 AM
>> > To: ba-autox@autox.team.net
>> > Subject: Stock Shock Chalk Talk
>> >
>> >
>> > The SEB is all over the map on trying to write a revised rule for stock
>> > shocks. You probably read the distilled draft of the rule in Fast-track
> last
>> > issue. While I appreciate the effort, after mighty debate, it has
> brought
>> > forth a rule that says that shocks for stock class cars cannot have
> remote
>> > reservoirs. This isn't even close to good enough. The debate for all
>> > practical purposes is dominated and limited to those very few
> stakeholders
>> > with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, which means more
> money
>> > than everyone else would even consider spending, or that they make their
>> > living at servicing them. It is not healthy for the sport, but I think
> they
>> > were surprised to hear from an "ordinary" member. The response was
>> > interesting. Someone on the SEB asked me (I think sincerely) for
> specific
>> > language. I am proceeding on the premise that a Koni 2800 or a Penske on
> a
>> > Stock car is as stupid as R Compounds and that a workable shock rule can
> be
>> > centered around restrictions on cost. If you don't agree with that, you
> need
>> > to write your own letter because thats where I'm coming from, and here
> is
>> > what I have:
>> >
>> > "It is the intent of this rule that Stock Class serve as the entry class
> to
>> > the sport and that cost containment is of primary importance to that
> goal.
>> > Shock absorbers costs are best controlled by limiting shocks to units
>> > economical enough that outright replacement of a unit is the mandatory
>> > alternative in lieu of rebuilding.
>> >
>> > 1) Shocks shall be limited to one external adjustment, except when OEM.
>> > 2) Shocks are limited to "off the shelf" units available for general
>> > distribution street use to the public typically including, but not
> limited
>> > to: OEM, Koni single adjustable, Bilstein, Tokiko, KYB, or available
> "house
>> > brands", or other such units that meet the criteria and intent of the
> rule.
>> > 3) The use of Koni 2800, Olin, Penske, Fox, DMS, or other such units
>> > specifically manufactured for the specialty racing market are
> specifically
>> > disallowed.
>> > 4) Shocks shall be installed "as manufactured" and shall not be
> purchased
>> > from a third party in a modified condition or opened up for any reason
> by an
>> > entrant or a third party. Revalving, machining, or modifying a shock
>> > absorber for any reason is specifically disallowed. Except as supplied
> as
>> > OEM, the use of remote reservoirs, alloy bodies, adjustable perches, or
>> > welded off coil-overs is prohibited.
>> > 5) Cost of each unit is limited to $250 per unit or 125% of OEM,
> whichever
>> > is greater."
>> >
>> > So, how close did I came? This gets added to the usual other stuff
> there.
>> > Also, if anyone can tell me if the cost item #5 does not work for them
> (like
>> > what does a 996 shock cost anyway?) or you can add to the list of
>> > allowed/dis-allowed, I would appreciate it. The other smoke and mirror
> thing
>> > you hear a lot of is enforceability (as though anyone who can get past a
>> > dipstick couldn't find tons of legal horsepower and tons more of
>> > undetectable horsepower) so they are worried that the guy in the next
> pit is
>> > going to cheat. its just a screen to not change a situation that has
> evolved
>> > to the ridiculous.
>> >
>> > Be good,
>> > Tony
|