First, I am glad I am not the only one to think that the logic used
to explain what (in my opinion) is a bad decision was - - poor (for
lack of a more descriptive yet legal way of putting it).
Second, I do not have privy to the inner workings and conference calls
between the members of the SEB, or between the various committees
and the SEB. But I am dead certain that some of the inferences, and
comments, made earlier by GH Sharp regarding McKamey and the PAC
being involved in this latest mandate regarding A Prepared is a crock.
The PAC committee had entertained several suggestions and complete
overhauls of the entire Prepared catagory, which did include again
separating
A and FP, and some (including portions of mine, which I forwarded a copy to
this forum about 2 months ago) were forwarded to the SEB with the PAC
recommendations.
Again, I am not privy to any info, and do not pretend to even have a clue
to what political forces are/were involved. But I strongly feel that most,
if
not all of the rulings effective 1/2000 were not a result of any of the
PAC's doings. The entire direction they were trying to steer this catagory
was completely different from what appeared - - I suspect sabatoged
somewhere
in the inner sanctum workings of the leadership of this organization.
As far as NOC, you are right. I probably did not think that through. I
still
can see black market European spec cars, and one-off's being eligible to
compete next to the standard production cars, but in Prepared that may
not be as big an issue as it first seemed - - we can do essentially what
they
have done to their cars. And, after thinking it through (Gawd, do I have a
headache now) that well could have come from the PAC - - I dunno. But at
least there is some kind of logic to that part of it - - it almost has to
be McKamey and crew's!!!
Kit cars? Well - - I will research the various kits available for my
chassis - -
there are over 200 - - but I will guarantee that I will find a kit I can
put on my
car, right now with nothing more than a re-body, that will cut a couple
hundred
pounds from the weight. Which class I end up in would be determined by
which body I emulate, but I am positive a Fiero could beat the rules with a
kit car re-body simply because there are so many kits made for that
chassis.
Regarding the 4 cylinder/238 hp multi-valve against the 425hp+/427 Cobra,
(fully prepared) with only a hundred pounds difference, throw math at me
all you want - - I would lose. And not necessarily in a fiberglass, kit
bodied
tube chassis Cobra (which would now be legal in AP), but in the aluminum
body ladder-chassis original.
The Lotii have already proven themselves dominant (for 2 reasons, superior
driving AND a superior car - - but that ain't a consideration in AP now,
remember?) as has the fully prepared Tiger. Even back in the old FP, well
Barry pretty much owned that class back then, too. (How many HP did you
say you thought he was getting from his tricked out 302??)
George, I will openly invite you to drive my car, - - which until allowed
open
fuel injection has had everything done to it that can be legally done in
it's
class - - powertrain and chassis - - against any of the above cars. I'll
even
pay your airfare (I work for an airline). Then and only then will I hear
your argument that my car is is their equal.
Equally (or more) fun to drive - - yes. Equal in performance - - no way!!
All I have asked for is a chance, just an opportunity. Not an "I"class -
maybe a "we" class for the Mazda's (I hate rotary's), Z-cars, Corvairs (Wow
- a place where they would have parity - - for a change!!) along with most
of
the others remaining from our old FP. I speak for us, not just me.
At least now, when I hear the bitching of those I have mentioned above, I
can say "write a letter - - I did". For what THAT is worth.
BTW - - using your math - - how WILL my car do in bracket racing??
George Ryan
----------
> From: Gemery@aol.com
> To: quad4fiero@webzone.net; autox@autox.team.net
> Subject: re: The REAL screwing (AP)
> Date: Friday, June 18, 1999 1:30 PM
>
> George Ryan writes about AP:
> >Reading this months Fastrack, I find that the efforts to make right
> >the previous SEB regimes' wrongs in that class were thwarted - -
> >listen to this logic - - because top 2 winners have gone to another
> >class. That makes everything allright now!!!
>
> Yeah, I gave an equal snort to that logic! On your other comments,
> however...
>
> >Oh, while this hideously novel idea and nuevo-thinking is prominent,
> >let's add some verbage to allow anybody NOC to run in AP - - that
> >will give parity to the class !!!!!!!!!
>
> Why not? What killer NOC car is out there? The SEB seemed
> to assign them a reasonable required weight and they're still not
> legal for Divisional, National Tour, and Nationals per intro of
> Section 15.
>
> >If I am going to be worse an underdog than I have been in years past
> >(a 4cyl 1900lb car vs a 2000lb 427 Cobra, or a 1400lb Lotus, or a 2300
> >lb Tiger) since the demise of FP, I may as well be a tremendous under-
> >dog in E Mod - - - joining the trend of the "old" FP'er the last couple
> >years.
>
> We've been through this before, but I'll oblige again:
>
> A) Fiero 4-cyl w/Quad Four engine: 1900 lb w/10 inch rims, 4-valves
> per cylinder, 2.3 (?) liters, modern FI or dual 48mm Webers
> w/unlimited venturis.
>
> B) Cobra 427: 2000 lb w/10 inch rims, 7.0 liters, single Holley carb
> limited to 35mm venturi.
>
> C) Lotus Elan: 1470 lb (didn't the SEB add 50 lbs for 2000 season?
> or is that already effective?) w/7 inch rims, 2 valves per cylinder,
> 1.6 liters, dual 40mm Webers w/32mm venturis.
>
> D) Sunbeam Tiger w/302 Ford: 2300 lb w/10 inch rims, 5.0 liters,
> single Holley carb limited to 39.7mm venturi.
>
> I honestly don't see how the Fiero's specs make you an underdog in
> this group. You've got the best rim width vs. weight and virtually
> unlimited induction compared to the limited induction for the others.
> All the power-to-weight ratios are reasonably similar, with the Fiero
> maybe having a slight edge. Additionally, the Tiger was an FP car
> originally, so you would have been in the same boat in the old days.
>
> >Or, let's see. I could take my current car, lighten it to - - however
light
> >I want to make it - - and put a kit car body on my current car (the
Fiero
> >is the chassis of choice for many kit cars) and still run in AP under
the
> >new rules.
>
> Did you really read the new rules or are you just reacting? The way
> I read FastTrack, the kit car allowance only includes "look-alikes" for
> cars already classified. In that respect, they must still meet the specs
> of cars already classified.
>
> George Emery
> gemery@aol.com
> http://members.aol.com/gemery
|