"Linnhoff, Eric" wrote:
>
> Wow. So does this mean that this is the last year of the Neon Super
> Solo? And does this mean that D-Spec will once again become D-Stock? Wow.
> =================================
> While this may bring some other cars back into the fray in DS I do know that
> the Neons are a VERY good package right out of the box. It might be
> interesting though to see some other cars in the class finally be developed
> to the level that the Neon has been. And what about Miata Stock? Or RX-7
> Stock?? Well okay, maybe the C-5 Vettes can be developed enough to catch
> the 3rd gen RX-7s. Maybe.
The RX-7's are agreeably the hot car for the class right now, but look
at the national level class populations. B-stock and D-stock are one
marque classes right now. SS still has a nice variety. Not as much as
say A-stock or G-Stock, but variety nonetheless.
> Stretched the rules??? How?? By making a better product and selling it
> through the regular dealers to anyone (well, after the first year anyway)
> that wants to buy one (cheaply I might add) and go win races? Isn't that
> what SS racing is supposed to be about?? Buying a car right off of the
> showroom floor, slapping some race tires and safety equipment onto the car,
> and then go racing. Am I wrong? If the other manufacturers don't like the
> idea that their cars aren't winning then maybe they should also have taken
> the time and effort into making a better car from the start. It's not as
> though Chrysler designed the Neon from the ground up as a racecar. They
> just took a common grocery getter and made a racecar out of it by carefully
> optioning the car in a sales package.
>
> Now granted I am a little biased since I own a Neon but come on, be fair.
> Don't get mad at Chrysler for making a better product, by the rules, and
> winning with it.
No, they didn't make a better product and people started winning with
it. They made a better product specifically so that people would win
with it. That's the problem I have. I really shouldn't have used the
word "stretched", more like "pushed". I mean come on, the first year
they made it they would only sell it to people who would were likely to
race it, and they had to prove it too. That's a 'special' in my eyes,
and to me it defeats the intent of showroom stock racing. Now Chrysler
and Mazda certainly aren't the only ones who have done this in the past,
but the sheer volume of "R" cars that Chrysler and Mazda have produced
is a very convenient way of making a "special" into a car that is in
high enough numbers to be considered "stock".
> Be mad at the other marques who were either too lazy or
> just too stupid to make an equally good racecar and then whine about it
> until they get their "allowances" in the form of the trunk kits.
Actually, the whole truck kit thing is what bothers me the most. Either
not allow the ACR and/or the Miata R, or get the other manufacturers to
jump on the bandwagon. And don't say "we can't just disallow a car",
because SS racing is an exclusionary class to begin with. There are only
a limited number of cars that are even allowed to compete in Showroom
stock classes anyway. It wouldn't have been too arduous to disallow
those cars then. Now, it would disenfranchise alot of drivers all at
once. So instead, the spirit of SS racing has become obsolete. Anyone
else wanted to compete in something other than a Neon or Miata is forced
to spend even more money for a trunk kit that is NOT a showroom stock
available package.
Oh well, I'm getting a little side tracked here, maybe you can tell
that I'm not too fond of this "trunk kit" thing.
O.B. autox content. Where can SSB or SSC cars compete in autocross
nowadays? Not stock, they've got to go either to SP or ST. And that just
plain sucks. We all knew that an SSB Miata would not be the best car for
B-Stock, but How about an SSB Integra with a Type R suspension? Or that
Ford Escort with GOBS of goodies thrown into it. It ain't stock anymore...
> I absolutely agree that there wouldn't be as many of the good drivers in the
> Neons if the contingency program wasn't available. But, I would still have
> bought mine anyway because they are a good, cheap daily driver that just
> also happens to be a very good autocross car.
I don't deny that they're good autorossers. But I really doubt would
have seen homogeneous fields of 30+ Neons at Nationals Chrysler hadn't
been offering up all that money.
-Josh2
--
Joshua Hadler '74 914 2.0 CSP/Bi - Hooligan Racing #29 - CONIVOR
'87 Quantum Syncro - aka stealth quattro
jhadler@rmi.net
http://rainbow.rmi.net/~jhadler/
|