The C5 will only get faster - the C4 is probably pretty
close to maximally tweaked in Stock. I think the
resurrection of BSP shows there is a very large
"market" of C4s that'll come out if they have perceived
equality. I would agree there is some inconsistency
with the way different generations of Vette are treated
vs. the ponycars, but the Vettes are being treated just
like the Miatas, Civics, and various other marques that
are split between classes.
> 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."
> << Yeah get that Boxster S out of SS2.....
> Jason "RX7 KLR" Isley
> -----Original Message-----
> From: kent rafferty [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> 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
> 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