autox
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: St for 2-seaters

To: autox@autox.team.net
Subject: Re: St for 2-seaters
From: dg50@daimlerchrysler.com
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 12:49:29 -0500
i"Jamie Sculerati" <jamies@mrj.com>

>> I like that one!  I have a CRX Si that I would love to campaign in ST.
>> Why not just allow 2 seater to run in the current ST?

> In a nutshell, power to weight ratio.  In a one-class preparation
category, > light cars will be almost impossible to beat.  Same rational
(for now) in SM

Give the man a cookie! He gets it.

In fact, SM is now looking very closely at minimum weight limits for the
4-seaters too.

Jim McKamey keeps trying to scare me with all the rare oddball
super-lightweights he's discovered. Cars that maybe have a couple of dozen
running examples left on the planet, but when built and prepped
accordingly... whew.

We can't sacrifice the good of the many for the select few, so we have to
keep these cars out. It's OK to have strong cars in SM. It's equally OK to
have those strong cars be something other than a Civic, DSM, or Mustang -
as long as the gap is reasonably close, and as long as the strong cars are
reasonably common. But strong, rare cars are the kiss of death. And as
we're not interested in playing "Whack-A-Mole" as they turn up, we need a
blanket rule that keeps them out as a class of car, not just individual
makes/models.

The common element on the cars that need exclusion is light weight coupled
to RWD or AWD.

So, as painful and distasteful as it is to everybody, we're investigating
minimum weights. Incidently, the parallel here to the STS tire problem
should be immediately apparent. Except that SM is going to do the right
thing, and bite the bullet up front.

And just so nobody panics, the current weight proposal we're considering
breaks weights down by engine type and driveline (FWD, RWD, AWD) with
small-displacement NA FWD lightest, and large-displacement/rotary AWD the
heaviest (the more power you make, the better your driveline for putting
power down, the heavier you have to be to get in)

The current weights were chosen so that anyone with a "signature car"
(Civic, Impressa, Integra, Prelude, Mustang, Camarobird, DSM, Cavilier,
etc) would be overweight - and so unlikely to be affected. And no, you
don't get to strip the car to make weight.

And one of the few nice things about weights (instead of just banning cars)
is that if someone really really wants to build the oddball, then as long
as they make weight, then they're in. So if Jim really wants to build that
700HP Subaru Justy AWD and run it with 1000lbs of ballast, he can do so. We
don't have to *ban* anyone - which makes us MORE inclusive, not less.

As for SM/ST for 2-seaters, we have told the people who want this class
that their destiny is in their own hands. If they really want the class,
it's up to them to organize themselves and lobby the SEB with letters (just
like we did) Nobody in SM is willing to stick their neck out to build a
class for people who's actual commitment is in doubt. The SEB is willing to
listen, and all of SM supports the idea of another class, but unless the
potential participants speak up, nothing is going to happen.

I've been beating this particular drum since Nationals, and the last time I
inquired, the SEB had received exactly *ONE* letter. Hardly a groundswell
of support.

The SEB helps those who help themselves.

DG


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • Re: St for 2-seaters, dg50 <=