I couldn't agree more!
That is my Major complaint with the restructure proposal.
There are several people in C4 vettes in stock class running VERY
close, if not beating other cars.
You know who you are...
This part of the proposal came before nationals.
Chuck
----- Original Message -----
From: <SVPViper@aol.com>
To: <autox@autox.team.net>
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 10:21 AM
Subject: RE: 2001 Stock Class Proposal
> Why are we making a class for C4's only? If we are going to remove a car
that has more TQ, and better Gearing from it's current class... just to make
room for the new and improved, why is this not done for FS? Why are 3rd &
4th Gen Camaro's still together? It is the same situation. Let alone the
3rd gen F-Body's have 305 5spds! and 350 w/Auto's! The 4th Gen's have 100
more HP... same TQ, and 6spds? For the first time in 4 years the C5 places
ahead of the c4's. Definitely not enough of a reason to separate the
Vettes????
> Dave Schotz
>
> In a message dated Mon, 9 Oct 2000 8:01:41 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
"Isley, Jason C." <JIsley@cell1.com> writes:
>
> << Yeah get that Boxster S out of SS2.....
>
> Jason "RX7 KLR" Isley
> jason.isley@alltel.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: kent rafferty [mailto:gs96@sgi.net]
> Sent: Monday, October 09, 2000 4:43 PM
> To: 'team.net'
> Subject: Re: 2001 Stock Class Proposal
>
>
> Nice effort Rick. I'm, ah, "concerned" that the new Boxter S is #1 in S2
> right out of the box. There was very little development time in that car
as
> far as I know and it still beat some very evolved Corvettes, including the
> well known L98s of McClure, Johnson, and Isley and even an LT4 with
mega-$$$
> shocks and established drivers. That should be indication enough that the
S
> should be in S1, but that's my opinion and I'm way biased.
>
> Kent Rafferty
>
>
> > I have gone through the effort and taken the 2000 Solo 2 Nationals and
> > 'reworked' the results to show how things would have been if the
proposal
> > were in place this year.
> >
> > Yes I know it is all hypothetical, but it's the best basis we have to
> > evaluate this proposal.
> >
> > Rick Cone
> >
> > http://pages.prodigy.net/conekiller/2001Proposal.xls
> >
> >
> >>
>
>
>
|