those cars would be reclassified, besides they have to buy new cars every
few years anyway.
i think andy's idea that its just semantics, and calling (or thinking of)
the current stock class "Improved" would solve most of the problems.
now, my Z car is supposedly "Improved Touring" which is extensive suspension
mods and an almost stock engine supposedly designed for people to drive to
the track and race, but come and take a look under the hood sometime. its
amazing what a "stock" motor ends up as when its used for racing- doesnt run
on pump gas, fouls the plugs under 4K RPM and overheats if it sits still for
more than 120 seconds. racers get good at maxing out the slightest
allowance.
-james "what are rules?" creasy
----- Original Message -----
From: "Thana, Peter {High~Palo Alto}" <PETER.THANA@ROCHE.COM>
To: "'Andy McKee'" <andrewmckee@yahoo.com>; <ba-autox@autox.team.net>
Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2002 06:43 PM
Subject: RE: Stock Shock Chalk Talk
> Not that *someone* on one of those endless grudge match national lists
> hasn't already pointed this out, but going back to OEM shocks would also
> cherry pick the very few cars that come from the factory equipped with
> decent shocks at the expense of everyone else. Lessee, in CS a car like
> Anthony's '99 Miata Sport would be even better with fresh Billies and
> everyone else on stock shocks (ever seen how much a stock MR2 Spyder rolls
> around?). DS the Type R is about the only one with "something special".
> Let's find one of those ever so hard to find 1LE Camaros that came with
D/A
> Konis for FS. In GS that Neon ACR w/factory Konis would look pretty good,
> no? In each case we're talking about a specialty model with low
production
> numbers relative to the rest of the range. I'm not saying that a good
> driver couldn't overcome that handicap, but the seriously committed
National
> types would end up finding those rare birds, and everyone else would whine
> about how they shouldn't be expected to buy a different car just to be
> competitive. They'd whine whether it was justified or not.
>
> Peter
|