I agree with Roger on almost everything he says here, with one
exception, his views on ST
At 10:46 PM -0500 10/7/1999, rjohnson@friendlynet.com wrote:
>2.) Recall the argument for the creation of ST - this was another
>"BIATWC" claim; then examine the entry list for that class at the Solo
>II Nationals -- primarily entrants who had previously run elsewhere,
>thereby diluting competition in their (former) classes.
and
>4.) In short, we have (currently) 27 different places we can run, 54
>with an odd chromosome, and more at the local level. This is a huge
>diversity of choices, with something to suit any choice of vehicle type.
I really don't care how ST (or my fav, STR) was created. What is
good about ST (and STR) is that it provides a place to play (and be
competitive) for a type of car that was MISSING from the previous
competition matrix.
It is now possible to build a car that has handling tweaks and is
still emissions legal. To me, at least, this is a good thing. I
want my car to handle better, but quite frankly, I like the idea of
clean running engines. (and please, lets not get started on that
thread we always diverge to, about how your car passed the XYZ test,
yes, there are always exceptions) This is a good thing is my book,
and I feel over time, that ST just may become the SP of the future.
pZ
--
Paul Czarnecki
|