Scott R Sawyer wrote:
> I've read an awful lot of posts on this of late, and I think I fall into
> the school of thought that says the real problem goes back to allowing
> the ACR into SS racing.
> Until the ACR, the cars that were raced in SS were the same model that
> was sold to the general public. The problem I have with the ACR is that
> it was built as a race package.
> My problem with DC is the way they handled the pull out.
The above shortened from longer post to avoid eye fatigue.......
Let's see if I have this right.
1) SCCA set up rules for Showroom Stock Racing
2) Chrysler mass-produced a car that ANYONE could buy, sold off the showroom
floor as per SCCA rules
3) No other manufacturers decided to produce a similar car (or they tried
and failed)
4) SCCA changes the rules to 'encourage' more competition
5) After many letters and discussions between SCCA and Chrysler, SCCA
refuses to change its mind.
6) Chrysler finally decides to withdraw.
I submit that Chrysler acted reasonably. SCCA, in my opinion, changed the
rules SUBSTANTIALLY to allow far from "Showroom Stock" cars to compete in
their series, drifting a great distance from the original Series concept. I
think it would have been far better to work with other manufacturers to
produce a competitive car within the rules.
So what's next? We will enjoy watching 'specialized' garage built cars
compete in SCCA road racing. The product offered the viewers might even be
better than what was before (time will tell). But "Showroom Stock" racing is
no more.
Correction - Chrysler did not 'take its toys" and go home - the toys are
still out there. Only the generous prize money has been withheld because of
the rule changes implemented by SCCA. More than reasonable in my view.
Scott Meyers
Glendale AZ.
Former ACR owner (Solo2)
|