The few times that I have autox I can honeslty say I was only doing it
for fun. I am currently a novice (prolly upgrade at the next race) and
have pretty much zero chance of winning. Right now there is a guy that
has raced the entire season as a novice, driving a Acura NSX. I am
driving an 87 Mustang GT E-SP. The tires are OLD, they came off a
different car, and barely hold air long enough to race. They have
absolutely NO traction (especially in a car with as much oversteer as my
mustang) so every turn is actually an attempt at controlled sliding. Not
pretty. But, hey, I have a blast sliding around on my old tires, and
finish dead last. =) Maybe someday I will get some real tires on the car
and actually pose a threat. But until then I am happy racing on what I
have. I just do it because it is a safe appropriate environment to drive
as hard as I can, and pick up the skills as I go. It is also a good
stress reliever for a poor college student. =)
Nathan
On Fri, 8 Oct 1999, Brian M Kennedy wrote:
> [I've been staying out of this thread for a while... so I have
> a number of thoughts stored up... my apologies for this long
> note... but I suppose its better than the ten shorter notes it
> almost was. ;^) ]
>
> At 10:34 AM 10/8/99 , Jay Mitchell wrote:
> >There's a mentality at work here which holds that, somehow,
> >automotive tastes and choices are hereditary, in the same way
> >that sex or race are. Using this faulty premise, it is alleged
> >that certain _people_ are being discriminated against as if they
> >can't change their mind about which car to own or how to prep it
> >for autox use. So, we wind up with concepts like "the Porsche
> >guys don't get a fair deal" as if they can't help it that they're
> >Porsche guys (come to think of it, maybe they can't ;<).
>
> I'll agree that mentality has shown up... and I'll agree its
> missing the point. But I also think that your conclusion misses
> the point as well, as have some others... (IMO, of course)
>
> The point is _lots_of_people_ having _fun_, right?
>
> "Lots of people" are NOT going to win the national championship
> unless we have so many classes that their national championships
> will be meaningless. And with a smaller number of classes, there
> will always be some cars that are a little better than others --
> its unavoidable unless we get cooperation from the mfgrs. ;^)
> Further, it will always be the case that the top competitors will
> choose the car they drive based on that. The rest of us who are
> not serious enough or not financed enough or not whatever enough
> to do that, _will_ be at a disadvantage. Unavoidable!
>
> So, what to do? First, focus on the cars that are _fun_ to drive
> fast. Nobody cares if there's a class where Ford Explorers or old
> Caddilacs are competitive! Most people who want to autocross want
> to do so in a good handling car. We want classes where all the old
> Porsches are reasonably competitive... because Porsches are great
> fun to autocross. We want classes where all the Miatas, all the
> Corvettes, all the small BMWs, all the Camaros and Mustangs, etc.,
> are _reasonably_ competitive. Why? 'Cause those are fun to drive;
> and as club members, we want as many fun-to-drive choices as we can
> have. Driving sports cars, or at least sporty cars -- that's _fun_.
> And driving and seeing _different_ sports cars is _fun_.
>
> But, the goal should be to group as many cars as possible into one
> class such that they are all _reasonably_ competitive. Afterall,
> not only do we want a variety of _fun_ cars, we want a variety of
> _competitors_... nothing's more un-exhilirating than winning a one-
> driver class (well, except not driving at all, I guess). Friendly
> competition among 25-40 like-minded competitors -- that's _fun_.
>
> What do I mean by _reasonably_ competitive? Do I mean if everybody
> switched cars they'd all place the same way? NO! It'd be nice, but
> its not realistic. I mean that all the cars should be similar weight
> and similar performance characteristics, such that they all attack
> the course similarly, such that the competitors can relate to each
> other when talking about their runs. That's _fun_.
>
> Further, as long as the cars are similar weight and behavior, drivers
> can far more easily know when they _drove_ just about as
> good as "Joe", but Joe just has a little more power. Still _fun_.
> Even if you know you lost due to your weak car. Unless you prepared
> the car to the limit, that'll even happen to people who have the
> "best" car for the class. In fact, it can make it _more_ fun for
> some, since they have an excuse. ;^) Personally, I think the key
> is making sure the cars are similar in _characteristics_, rather
> than similar in _times_.
>
> Further, similar cars will tend to vary less in performance from
> course to course. That'll greatly reduce the complaints about
> different courses favoring different cars and upsetting the status
> quo in each class... and that'll result in a lot more variety in
> course designs... and for me at least, that's lots more _fun_.
> Also, the times from event to event are more comparable, so you
> can see if you are improving relative to your competitors. _Fun_!
>
>
> In contrast, if you're driving a 3200# car in a class with a bunch of
> 2200# cars, you pretty much have no idea how you are driving compared
> to the rest. You can't really discuss and compare how you attacked
> sections of the course -- your different cars make the courses look
> totally different. You have no idea if you are driving better or worse
> than your competitors... was their lighter weight the difference, or
> your bigger power? Worse, you can't even tell if you are improving
> event to event... was it that longer straight, or the tighter slalom, or
> whatever that made the difference from last event? Much less fun.
> Builds minimal comraderie. Retains fewer drivers. Even less fun.
>
>
> Should the C4's be reclassed? They seem reasonably competitive in SS AND
> I don't see a group of cars where they would be _more_ similar. So, I
> don't think so. Should the lower powered Miatae be reclassed? Not sure,
> they do seem reasonably competitive where they are; but it does seem they
> might be even more similar to the cars where they are going. Maybe.
> Should the BMW 325's be reclassed from BS to GS? I think so... they have
> nothing in common with Miata, and lots in common with GS cars. And they
> are a blast to autox, so its unfortunate to not have them classed where
> they are _fun_ to autox.
>
> Overall, I think our classing should be more weight-oriented than it is,
> and I really like the SP restructuring for the reasons above. But I think
> even more improvements are possible with continued focus on weight and
> _how_ they perform, not just what times they can produce.
>
> Variety of sporty cars; variety of competitors; meaningful comparisons
> of runs; meaningful comparisons throughout season; variety of courses;
> lots to talk about. That's what's _fun_ -- that's what I want from
> the car classes. I don't need a totally level playing field to have fun.
>
>
> Brian
>
> P.S. Disclaimer: I don't mean to imply that I can devise a better set
> of classes than the SEB has done! I can't -- and haven't even tried to
> digest together all the cars they have managed to classify! I am just
> saying that I think the focus should be on getting similar cars together
> in order to maximize the _fun_ factor, rather than getting similar times
> together assuming a traditional nationals-like course. And it may be the
> SEB is already doing just that as well as it can be done...
>
87 GT 5spd
SCCA E-SP
http://www.nmt.edu/~nberg/mustang.html
|