I find myself in agreement with Josh2 on the Baby Grands. I like'em. And my
reasons basically mirror his.
Actually, I base it not on just "three runs on two courses" but on four, for
I also ran against them at the weekend warmup event. My personal parameters
for did-I-like-them-or-not was that they be competitive but not overdogs, and
that they not cluster together at one end or the other of the results but be
reasonably spread through the results. That is about exactly what happened.
At all four events (two warmup courses, two Nationals courses).
They had one good driver very familiar with the car, Brett Egen (and his wife
Lynn), who finished in a trophy position (8th). They had one multi-time
national champion who'd had a little seat time and development in the cars,
Jim McKamey, who finished mid-pack. They had another national champ (not only
former, but this Nationals, so he had the advantage of seeing the courses
before we ran [hey, it was just exhibition; no harm no foul], Bruce Domeck,
who ended up right behind McKamey but only after trying three different cars
and driving Egen's for his final run. In fact, I beat Domeck on the first day,
McKamey on the second day, and had Domeck for both days until his final run.
They had another national champ, Danielle Engstrom, with a badly set-up car
that, as much as anything, proved it would not easily flip despite her several
spins. And they had A relative newbie to Solo II, Larry Morgan, who finished
toward the tail end.
About where you would figure this array of drivers in this array of cars should
finish ... not dissimilar in that respect to the rest of the class. And Hey,
I actually beat McKamey on a course. I don't care if he is in a pedal car,
that still takes some doing.
On the argument of the car being production-based -- to me that is not really
a determinant. That ascribes parameters to the category that did not really
exist nearly 3 decades ago when categories were invented. Yes, children, once
upon a time the classing structure was "you have a Spitfire, you are class J."
And there I was with my bone-stock axle-waving Spitfire up against full-race
machines. But that was before SCCA invented "Solo II". The question was,
what do we do with the race cars? And Prepared was the answer. Suddenly my
bone-stocker was competitive.
Okay, fast-forward 30 years. Is the Baby Grand a production based car? By a
stretch of the rules, yes. The brand name is Baby Grand, just like Triumph or
Honda or Chevrolet. It has very specific rules parameters, even moreso than
the rest of Prod and thus easier to police. It's development restrictions make
it a good fit for cars of the potential found in DP and that is the best reason
for placing it in DP, rather thaqn in any Mod class where its development
restrictions make it patently uncompetitive.
And, they are fun, they are recognizable, they are the type of car that people
will stop and watch and guess what? That brings attenti0on to DP. This would be
a good thing. Yeah, they are 5/8 versions, but they look like real cars and
not like some formula car, sportsracer or batmobile.
It is a good fit. That is a better reason than the genesis of its creation.
And, yes, it will help boost numbers in DP that have been declining in recent
years (the '98 Nationals a delightfully remarkable exception in the trend, long
may it continue and I'd be delighted if Baby Grands helped in that effort).
--Rocky Entriken (and I DO have a dog in this fight)
PS -- on the original protest/teardown question, Stan Whitney noted that all
the top cars are trailered. In this class, so are all the bottom cars. Teardown
in any circumstance should not really be a problem.
The reason for the original rule (no protests after final run) is to prevent
witch hunts by losing drivers -- "he beat me, let's see what I can find." And
I am not truly convinced that the 11-bolt head on the Imbeau car is wholly
to be credited for their 3rd and 9th finishes (let us note that Kendall would
not have trophied had the Imbeaus been bounced, so he has no axe to grind
in that respect). They still had to drive the thing, and they drove well. From
down in 17th (20th with the BGs) I'm not about to whine too loudly. But I
think Kendall makes this point: If you can see it just standing there, should
not action be possible at least up to the point of release from impound? The
witch hunt rule could prevent fishing expeditions such as might require a
teardown, but if you can look at the car and suddenly: "oh! He's got the
11-bolt head!" and that in its entirety becomes the point of protest, such
may be worth considering. Otherwise, we are expected to scrutinize every
competitor on grid and in first-day impound. He raises a valid question: why
bother with a second-day impound if nothing can come of it? (Well, it can,
cars get weighed, measured, etc., and perhaps compliance-checked, but there
should be no reason to raise hoods or provide compeititors a chance to look
if what they see is irrelevant.)
Then again, if it was proposed that the 1275 Mini 11-bolt engine be allowed
in Spridgets, since other engine combos readily swap between Minis and
Spridgets, I'm not sure what I'd cite as any basis for opposition. These motors
are so easily and readily traded out that I can buy the argument of innocently
believing it to be OK for both makes of car, and thus hesitate to label the
Imbeaus as cheaters. But I'd also not expect to see it in the car next year,
lacking some rule change expressly permitting it.
|