I wrote:
> Nationally, there is a history of older winning stock vehicles
that have been
> protested and DSQed.
Jay responded:
<< E.G., Bill Breedlove's Z car, some 914s, etc. I still have the
question: how is this a problem, and how is the situation
different than with newer cars? >>
In order to run an older car, which has undoubtedly been through a few
owners, you need to take it completely apart to be sure it's legal.
Competitors running against such a car shouldn't have to protest it on a
continual basis to make sure the playing field is level.
CHD:
>It's been perceived that the only way to beat an older
> vehicle is in the protest shed.
Jay:
That's somebody's perception, though. If it were really true,
then why doesn't anybody run a 914 in Stock these days? Or a
240Z? I think you'll find that most older cars gradually stop
appearing in Stock because a) they're no longer as competitive as
they used to be, b) there are fewer of them in the used-car pool
as time and wrecking yards take their toll, and c) in many cases
you can't buy the parts you have to have in order for the car to
be legal in Stock. It looks to me like the problem does a pretty
good job of fixing itself. >>
But someone is bound to show up in one, and there's a pretty good chance it's
been "improved." So, not many show up, but when one does, it's suspect...
CHD:
> That being said, the SCAC/SEB couldn't get an "old car rule"
passed last time
> we tried it (I think it was a 15 year max, if I remember
correctly), so I > doubt it will happen in the next few years.
Jay:
<< I think it would be politically unpalatable. 24 of 53 entries in
this year's SS, for example, are at or beyond Kevin's proposed
seven year age cutoff. I think you'd find yourself getting LOTS
of unfriendly cards and letters if you told those guys (and gals)
that they have to get a newer car to keep playing in Stock. And I
just don't think there's any purpose that would be served by
doing that. >>
That's why I doubt it will be proposed.
CHD
|