Funny, I was thinking just the opposite. Stock competitiveness typically
boils down to one thing; the "haves" and "have nots". Those that have race
alignment capability and those that don't. How competitive would a Neon be
if it has only 1 degree of negative camber instead of 3+ degrees? My opinion
is that we take too much of a primadonna attitude towards keeping Stock pure
and innocent, which it hardly is. You can't expect to take the gamet of
automobiles, of which each manufacturer has their own agenda and priorities,
and have parity. Your either going to have few classes comprised of many
dogs or too many classes to even comprehend like the NCCC.
I wouldn't mind giving up all the Stock allowances, except that IMO we should
open up the alignment allowance to achieve any caster & camber setting deemed
prudent by the competitor. Pure Stock is a noble idea that has never panned
out, and never will. SCCA Racing finally had to come to grips with this, but
now they have themselves right back into another unmanagable stew playing the
Trunk Package game. Just give them the alignment capability and then let
them fall in where they will.
M Sipe
rex_tener@yahoo.com writes:
<< That is an interesting thought. Now that the SEB is willing to start with
a clean sheet of paper for all the stock classifications, maybe it is time
to take away some of the "antique" stock allowances.
Eliminate 13.4 wheel allowance.
Eliminate 13.7 front sway bar allowance.
Eliminate 13.8 suspension crash bolts.
Discuss amongst yourselves. >>
|