First, about "Japanese Camaro"
Something else the Supra and the Camaro have in common with each other, but
not in common with the stuff from Stuttgart, is distinctly nose-heavy
weight distribution. From everything I've read on the Porsches (including
the PCA's own websites) the 944 family came with perfect 50/50 weight
distribution.
The 944 and 928 are also physically much smaller than either the Supra or
the Camarobird/Mustang. Size matters.
Now:
"Jay Mitchell" <jemitchell@compuserve.com> wrote:
> This controversy is starting up yet again, even as the advocates of the
new classes
> seem to be getting exactly what they've been demanding.
This needs to be underscored, not so much for Jay's benefit, but for
others. The current SM2 layout is based on the accumulated feedback and
demand of almost 2 years of communication between SM people and
not-SM-but-really-want-to-be-people. This is not a sudden development; it
represents a ton of work - and a large chunk of that work (it is worth
saying) is NOT mine. I say that not to disassociate myself from it, but to
give recognition to a group of hardworking individuals who are finally
reaping the fruit of their labour.
> 1. None of the classes or Categories in Solo II *requires* that you
trailer your car
> to an event. Quite the contrary, that's at the driver's discretion.
A discretion that we intend to keep. A "no trailer" rule, aside from being
impossible to enforce, is totally contrary to the spirit of upper level
National competition. Greater numbers of people participating at the
National level implies more people travelling greater and greater
distances. Competing 2000km away from your home base implies carrying more
in the way of supplies, tires, tools, and spares. To expect anyone to
attempt to stuff all that into a Civic would be daft.
Besides, as SM cars get wilder and wilder, breakage is going to become more
of a problem. I would not support any rule that would strand a competitor a
long way from home.
> 2. Regardless of the rules for a given class, serious autocrossers will
take maximum
> advantage of those rules to build a car that is optimized for autocross
in preference > to street use.
Absolutely. For those unclear on the intent, this has been the assumption
from day 1.
> The two sets of optima are mutually exclusive to a large extent.
This is nowhere near as big a deal as is commonly made out to be. A
properly-built SM or SP car is still suprisingly streetable. My car -
fiberglass race seats, 600lb springs, unobtanium shocks, and the works - is
still a comfortable daily driver. And what it lacks in creature comforts
(the AC came out this weekend, sacrificed on the altar of Supra spanking
*sigh*) it makes up for in visceral thrills.
Do not underestimate what people will put up with in a street car. My Talon
is a sweetheart when compared to my old drag race Trans Am. It would scrape
headers on the white lines on the road. It required a carefully applied
ritual (including the waving about of a dead chicken) to get it to start in
cold weather. It had an idle quality that required defibrillation at
regular intervals, and (when cold) the idle speed of a leafblower. It not
only didn't have AC, it didn't have a heater (or window defrost!) The
Holley Blue fuel pump wailed loud enough at idle to drown out conversation,
and the glasspack mufflers drowned out the fuel pump at cruise.
And I commuted 25km each way in it, 365 days a year - because there was a
whole lot of fun lurking under my right foot.
> and no amount of self-righteous complaining (or attempts to legislate via
the rules)
> will make the slightest difference in the situation.
Agreed. Again, this has been part of the plan since day 1.
> 3. There is not now, nor has there ever been, nor will there ever be, a
set of rules
> that can ensure that the modifications an individual might make to
his(her) car for a > purpose other than autox will allow that car to be
competitive if the owner decides to > try our sport. See 2. above. If
you're not specifically targeting autox as you modify > a car, what do you
think are the odds that the changes you make will be maximally
> effective for that purpose? I claim they're close to zero.
Bingo. This is why SM allows almost no chassis work, and why suspension
work is restricted to the use of the stock mounting points. The single most
expensive and time consuming (and difficult) part of building a Real
Racecar (read: Prepared and Modified) is the chassis development. Chassis
development is what separates the men from the boys, in both the
engineering and cost departments. This, more than anything else, is what
separates a "street" car from a "race" car - so we allow almost NOTHING
here in SM. That's a designed-in, on-purpose deal.
> 4. As the new classes develop, the cars that eventually rise to the top
will be cars
> that have been specifically developed for autox competition.
Yes. Note that National-SM and Regional-SM, while they share the same rules
(which makes for nice easy progression from Regional to National) are NOT
the same. Regional SM is more for the "I built my car this way and now I
want a place to run with it" crowd, where National SM is for the "I built
this really KILLER car to the limit of some really open rules" crowd.
National SM serves as an example, inspiration, and target for those in
Regional SM, the same way that Major League Baseball does for the little
leagues, or the PGA Tour does for your average duffer. Part of building
large participation numbers at the regions is providing regional
competitors with "heroes" (note the quotes and small "h") This undoubtably
sounds silly to some of you (perhaps most of you) but it works.
> Their spring rates/damping rates/ride heights will be entirely unsuitable
for routine > street use, and their cost will be sufficiently high that
many owners will opt to
> trailer their cars solely to avoid wearing out (and risking damage to)
their
> investement in time, money, and sweat.
I've covered the "unsuitable for street use point. We differ. I have one.
It's streetable. It sees street use.
But yes, wear and tear on the car is fast becoming a serious factor in the
daily use of the car. It's not that the car is unsuitable, it's that I
don't want to expose all that work to the risk of being t-boned by some
moron.
> If the ridiculous "street licensed" requirement remains in SM,
It's not "ridiculous", it serves to help keep folks honest. Having said
that though, it causes enough confusion on enough issues that it would be a
serious administrative savings to eliminate it.
One of the things that will have to happen this summer is that the SM rules
will have to be rewritten in full, the same way the STS rules were, in
order to prep for inclusion into the rulebook as a full National class. One
of the things I will be pushing for is a list of required equipment that
constitutes a "licencable" car (headlights, tailights, etc) and which the
current requirement for current registration is intended to address. With
this in place, we could consider dropping the requirement for current
street tags.
Note though, that I do not get to make rules by fiat, so I make no promises
one way or another.
> the serious developers that choose that class will simply get tags for
their trailered > cars - it ain't hard to do
Yup.
> - and, otherwise, SM will have nothing to distinguish it
> from SP (or even STS after awhile).
Uhhh... not sure what you mean here.
> I don't see any of the above as a problem for Solo II, but apparently
some of you will > see it as a problem wrt your interpretation of the
"intent" of the rules. My advice:
> get used to it: it's been that way for a long time, and it ain't gonna
change. The
> rules have nothing to do with it, ! it's the nature of the human
competitive spirit.
Yup. And to nail home the point, this has been part of the cognitive
process of ALL the people involved in the creation and maintainence of SM
since first principles. It's seen as a GOODNESS, not as a problem.
DG
|