Mike Lamfalusi <lamfalus@excite.com> wrote:
>> 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.
> Like Mr. M. Sipe said, if you think stock is this way (pure and
innocent),
> you're kidding yourself.
Uhhh... given that Roger has been running Stock classes since about 1983 or
so, I think he's got a pretty good handle on what's involved in running a
competitve Stock class car.
And he's right - in our current "Stock" class there is an appearence that
there is a lot of secret and special preperation needed to make the cars
competitive, and every time you add more allowences, you add to that
perception. The truth may be something else entirely (Daddio's shocks, for
example, are simple revalved Koni single-adjustables. He spent a lot of
time and effort coming up with the valving, but there's nothing exotic
about his shocks) but then people don't make decisions based on Truth, they
make decisions based on their _perception_ of the truth.
And here's a cold hard fact - most newbies flatly believe that there is
nothing wrong with their driving, and if they get beat it's all car. So
when they get spanked, there must be some black-magic car prep or exotic
parts at work, not their driving! So they get discouraged, and leave.
> Not to mention that most cars are trailered because they are next to
undrivable on
> the street.
Do you live on a farm? 'Cause that's one hell of a pile of fertilizer
you've got going there. I have yet to encounter a Stock-class car that was
"undrivable", and in fact if memory serves, Daddio very often drove his
multiple-national-championship Neon to the events with his race tires in
the trunk. Hell, most _SP_ cars are still completely streetable, and I
drove my SM car to work today. Again.
Most people (including myself) trailer cars to facilitate carrying all the
spares, tools, toys, and other crap that goes along with a big event, NOT
because the car is somehow "undrivable"
> I'm not
> trying to be a jerk or anything, but I just can't see how this argument
> holds up.
It's very simple:
1) "Stock" class racing is expensive enough as it is.
2) Why make it any worse?
>> 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.
> See above. I don't think you'll lose any members if you allow Miata
drivers
> (and all others too), to REMOVE their sunvisors,
OK, so tell me - where does it stop? Write out your proposed rule, and
let's see what you've got.
> And allowing whatever alignment involves inginuity and
> engineering more so than it costs any big money.
Do you think that's free? Do you have any idea how much it costs to be the
first to do something? Look me up at an event sometime, and I'll tell you
the saga of how long it took me to get 275 series tires on a Talon and make
them work. Should be simple, right? Just get the right wheel in the right
offset, right? HA!
But OK, let's say we allow open alignment. Does that mean I get to use
camber plates? Offset bushings? Different control arms? What's better, a
slotted upper strut mount, or an offset lower bushing? Dunno? Guess we
gotta test both then....
See where this is going?
> Wouldn't it be cheaper to
> modify your existing car to be more competitive than it would be to go
out
> and buy a new car to be more competitive?
It's called Street Prepared, or, for the more refined and discriminating
competitor, Street Modified. But it sure ain't Stock.
DG
|