autox
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Stock reclassification

To: "Martin, William A" <MartinWA2@navair.navy.mil>,
Subject: Re: Stock reclassification
From: Gary Thomason <gtsolo2@home.net>
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 15:49:04 -0700
Bill,

I agree with you 100%.

Gary


"Martin, William A" wrote:
> 
> Gary Thomason wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> As for the proposed stock class re-structuring, I happen to think
> most of it is fine, with a few glaring exceptions. They (the SCAC)
> make a statement about classing similar type cars together as a general
> goal, and then promptly do just the opposite in many cases.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> 
> There are inherent problems which occur when trying to class similar cars
> together.  One of the biggest is exemplified by classing early 155 bhp
> Camaros with late 305 bhp Camaros under the "best of breed" theory.  Yet we
> don't always impose this criteria, Miata being the foremost example.  I
> think Similar Car & Best of Breed works well for 80% of the cars, but leaves
> a large number of loose-ends and resulting inequities. I also believe the
> current system drives up the costs of Stock competition as serious
> competitors are constantly pushed to buying the latest and greatest.
> 
> Perhaps a better approach would be to abandon SC,BoB in favor of straight AX
> potential.  Class 1 is for your fastest cars, Class 9 for slowest. Using my
> above example, the two Camaros would settle into different, appropriate
> classes.  Two obvious difficulties -- how to determine that potential, and
> course dependency effects (Because big and small cars will now likely be
> mixed).  The initial placement would of course be by SEB with SCAC input.
> Errors could be sorted out along the way, and fixing them is pretty easy
> since all the rungs of the ladder are now sequential.  As to course
> dependency, I think you have to aim for a typical Nationals / Tour type
> course.  This means regions running on postage stamp courses or running
> pseudo Solo I's will have some problems.  But hey, there's never going to be
> a perfect solution.  I believe there will be fewer built-in inequities with
> this type of system, and it could significantly reduce costs of this sport
> by giving older cars an opportunity for ongoing competitive classing.
> 
> Bill Martin

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>