Jay Mitchell wrote:
> >You mean like the factory replacement Mazda RX-7 cats instead of
> >aftermarket ones? That is the case in existing Stock right now.
>
> No, it's not. Aftermarket cats are allowed once a car is outside of the
> 50k mandatory emissions warranty period. The "same type and size"
> restriction is there, but you're not required by the rules to buy the
> manufacturer's replacement cat.
I do believe you're wrong here. I seem to recall a lot of discussion on this
topic before. The burden of proof that it was not a higher performance
component fell on the installer. The folks even talked about having to carry
around the boxes stuff came in.
> Lemme get this straight. Are you really trying to claim that a set of
> replacement shocks from Porsche won't cost more than the Konis you can
> buy from an aftermarket distributor? Or a factory exhaust will cost less
> than a straight pipe put in at Midas plus a SuperTrapp? Let's see the
> numbers...
No I wasn't - but *AM* looking for a way to outlaw $4000 worth of shocks on
a "Stock" car :-) I am open to other alternatives that are *factory
equivalent* in fact.
> Are you saying that what you propose _won't_ make a typically-maintained
> three or four year old car illegal in Stock? Restrictive rules, in the
> limit, always increase costs, and they always fail to prevent those with
> money to spend from gaining an advantage by spending it.
There will always be cheaters and those who push the rules to the limit -
make that limit less expensive is all........
> >There are many who sample our sport, see "Stock" cars with the fantastic
> >modifications, and never return.
>
> I'd say it's more accurate to say that "There are many who sample our
> sport, see "Stock" cars beat them by several seconds, and never return."
> I know some of those folks. It's pretty difficult to admit that you're
> not the driver you thought you were. It's a whole lot easier to say "I
> didn't win because those other guys spent more money." Doesn't make it
> true, though.
The sky doesn't have to fall on me ;-) to let me know that no matter
how good I may be that if I intend to prosper in this sport (in Stock class,
i.e. "The Beginning") I will l have to spend $$$$$$$$$$$ to be competitive.
I am suggesting that we seek a way so that it is only $$$$$.
> >I'm not suggesting that we create a place for everyone to win. I *am*
> >suggesting that we create a place where the perception of fairness in a
> >stock setting is stronger, and that everyone has a chance to do well.
>
> You won't stand a chance of doing well if you don't first acknowledge
> that the driver is the most important element, especially in Stock.
I have not said anything or implied anything that suggests otherwise. More
folks will "give it a go" if the total $$$ is less - good for our sport.
Lets seek a way, huh? At least at the *beginning* level.
> >Those of us who prepare to the near limit of the rules are a strong
> >influence on potential competitors.
>
> The biggest influence on newcomers' perceptions is the time differentials
> they typically encounter, and it's _not_ due to differences in vehicle
> preparation.
Newbie arrives. Newbie sees a well prepared stock car. Newbie loses by a
lot. Newbie knows the driver is savvy, handsome (or pretty), and drives very
well. Newbie figures that he/she might have a chance if they could afford
the $$$$$, but knows that they can't. Newbie blows us off, goes drag racing
(or Circle Racing?) :-) The end.
Stock should be the **entry level**, not the **mid-level**.
> >Don't want to buy the factory or 'allowed" Checker/other alternatives? Go
>
> >to the Street Mod classes.
>
> No thanks. SP works fine for me.
Good. But not for everyone. Lets give more folks with limited income a
chance at ***Stock*** Class.
> >There may be the need to define a stock-equivalent source for parts.
> >Maybe not.
>
> "Stock-equivalent" IS defined. You can't install shocks that change the
> suspension geometry, replacement suspension bushings can't be stiffer
> than OEM, etc. But none of those items fits the concept of "pure stock."
> What exactly is the problem with the existing allowances (except the
> front swaybar rule, but let's not go there, it won't change anyway)?
This is a time I believe when balance can be restored to something that is
already very good, a chance to improve it some. You can't expect folks to
believe that the $$$$$ shocks are "factory equivalent" really can you? If
so I have a bridge in Lake Havasu City I can sell you......
> Jay "Stock aint' broke" Mitchell
Not broke, but can be better. I believe we/organizations are either
improving or declining. There is no status quo, because factors around us
change all the time. If we respond to, or worse, *ignore* the effect of
those changes I submit we are in a state of decline. Lets not.
Thanks for the response.
Scott
CS RX-7, Happy where it is (a challenge)
"Climb every mountain, cross every sea....." EVERYONE NOW!!!!!!
|