In a message dated 11/10/04 9:52:43 AM Pacific Standard Time,
lollipop487@comcast.net writes:
> In my naive view, I always thought a P car had to start out life as a
> real car, and stay as that car. A Fiat X1/9 doesn't morph into a Fiero or
> Porsche (a big stretch, I guess), or a Miata doesn't morph into a Lotus
> Elan. But they run in similar configurations.
> But it's okay to morph a Triumph TR8 into a Sunbeam Tiger? Can you
>
It's that Section 17.11 allowance that you can run a car in Prepared that
meets PCS or GTCS roadracing specs that causes this problem. I'm personally
not
in favor of the allowance. How many people are really going to bring GT-1 or
2 car out and autocross it? But it does allow cars like Riley's Mustang,
Lewis' Camaro to run in CP, and Kinney's Tiger to run inf BP (all at a 10%
weight
penalty), or any of them to remove weight and run in AP. If a TR-8 started
out as a pile of tubes and Triumph sheet metal, and a Tiger was built next to
it with a similar pile of tubes and Sunbeam sheet metal, and they both ended up
on the grid at a roadrace, they would be accepted as GT cars. Just because
that one single pile of tubes had one set of bodywork and drivetrain, and now
has another seems to get in the way. But in either iteration, the car is a
tube frame car with bodywork that looks like something we recognize, just like
Riley's and Lewis' cars. Actually, the TR-8 looked more like areal one and the
Tiger looks more like a real one than either of the CP examples look like a
Mustang or Camaro.
I think the fundamental question is whether any of those cars should be
Prepared cars. Personally, I'd rather they went somewhere else. But in actual
Nationals competition, only one car carrying the "in-excess" weight penalty has
ever won CP, Jesus driving Jerry's car. I don't think any other classes (other
than A/P, of course) have been won by in-excess cars. So, it looks like we
have parity.
Charlie
|