1.) There is far more to competitiveness than alignment. There
are cars in my class with 100 hp more than I have - so by your
reasoning, I should be able to run their motor, right?
2.) Each time you add allowances, you make it more difficult
to attract and retain new competitors. They are often overwhelmed
by the appearance of what it takes to be competitive.
3.) Each time allowances are changed, or vehicles are re-classed, you
cost people money. Money that could be spent travelling to events,
paying entry fees, and the like. Sometimes, the status quo
is the best solution even if it isn't the right solution.
LA>On Fri, 7 Jul 2000 02:22:49 EDT, TeamZ3@aol.com wrote:
LA>> Funny, I was thinking just the opposite. Stock competitiveness typically
LA>> boils down to one thing; the "haves" and "have nots". Those that have
LA>> alignment capability and those that don't. How competitive would a Neon
LA>> if it has only 1 degree of negative camber instead of 3+ degrees? My
LA>> is that we take too much of a primadonna attitude towards keeping Stock
LA>> and innocent, which it hardly is. You can't expect to take the gamet of
LA>> automobiles, of which each manufacturer has their own agenda and
LA>> and have parity. Your either going to have few classes comprised of many
LA>> dogs or too many classes to even comprehend like the NCCC.
LA>> I wouldn't mind giving up all the Stock allowances, except that IMO we
LA>> open up the alignment allowance to achieve any caster & camber setting
LA>> prudent by the competitor. Pure Stock is a noble idea that has never
LA>> out, and never will. SCCA Racing finally had to come to grips with this,
LA>> now they have themselves right back into another unmanagable stew playing
LA>> Trunk Package game. Just give them the alignment capability and then let
LA>> them fall in where they will.
LA>> M Sipe
LA>I couldn't agree more with this thought. Stock class already isn't very
LA>stock and those who are competitive nationally and win nationally already
LA>spend a LOT of money on the car, so trying to keep things cheap and "stock"
LA>is slightly unrealistic.
LA>Let's say you have two very similar cars in HP, weight, drivetrain, car A
LA>and car B. If car A has a camber range from the factory of 0-1 degree, and
LA>car B has a camber range of 0-3, and car B ends up dominating because of the
LA>camber help, then the owners of car A would obviously want either their car
LA>or car B put in a different class because they can't match the competitive
LA>level of car B. Now, if we allow ALL cars whatever alignment they see fit,
LA>then car A can now keep up with car B and no reclassification is necessary
LA>and there are less complaints etc.
LA>There will be more parity within each class and many more types of cars in
LA>each class if EVERYONE is allowed to do what they want with alignment (and
LA>maybe a few small other things). People complain about one car's advantage
LA>over another due to coming equipped with item A, but guess what, if all cars
LA>are allowed to be equipped with item A, then it ceases to be an advantage,
LA>you create more parity, and don't have to reclass everything as often and
LA>you don't have to have too many different classes. Besides alignment, I
LA>think little things like visors, rear view mirrors, pedal covers, and shift
LA>knobs (you know, all of those things that we've debated over quite a bit
LA>recently) should also be "open" items. Do what you want with those things.
LA>When everyone can do it, no one can complain that they have a disadvantage
LA>due to any one of the above.
LA>Yes its a slippery slope, where do you stop, blah blah blah, but it's rather
LA>obvious where we stop. The things that are obvious are the things that
LA>frequently get brought up in this forum, like those items I mentioned above.
LA>I don't want to stock to turn into some class where the cars are barely
LA>stock, but I think that debated comfort and convenience items, alignment,
LA>major wear items (shocks, exhaust...) should be free to change. None of
LA>these things is that expensive, at least no more so than it already is, and
LA>it will allow everyone one to make the changes so they won't have any reason
LA>to complain that their car didn't come factory equipped with the best racing
LA>style parts but some other car did (can I stress this idea enough?).
LA>I know that this is not the politically correct opinion in SOLOII circles,
LA>and people won't like me for saying it, but so what. It's obvious that
LA>there is need for some change and I won't just sit like an old man, pound my
LA>fist and support the status quo just because its the status quo. "We didn't
LA>have no fancy pants stock class rules in my day. That's just the way it was
LA>and we liked it!" ;) Time changes, cars change, and so should we.
LA>'97 VW Jetta GLX
LA>GS - Chicago Region
LA>> firstname.lastname@example.org writes:
LA>> << That is an interesting thought. Now that the SEB is willing to start
LA>> a clean sheet of paper for all the stock classifications, maybe it is
LA>> to take away some of the "antique" stock allowances.
LA>> Eliminate 13.4 wheel allowance.
LA>> Eliminate 13.7 front sway bar allowance.
LA>> Eliminate 13.8 suspension crash bolts.
LA>> Discuss amongst yourselves. >>
LA>Say Bye to Slow Internet!