> As a whole, the Stock class allowances aren't broken.
> Some of us
> may not agree with this or that, but that's not a case for trying to
> make a
> fix that will most likely cause more problems than we already have.
I happen to be one who believes that stock should mean stock. I believe
that the stock rules are extremely too liberal, especially if it is
actually to the point where classing is decided based on how a car may
perform with extensive, allowed modifications rather than how that car
performs as produced. However, the system seems to work and I do agree
that in 90% of the time the better DRIVER will come out on top. What
happens when two equal drivers meet, one with a buttload of cash with
which he can prepare his car, one a young poor college student (a concept
I have yet to hear mentioned on this thread but which I submit happens on
a regular basis), both driving the same model of the same car?
I just hold those people who are charged with developing this set of
rules in great respect, because when I read long, drawn-out, emotional
exchanges such as this thread, with people being insulted and tempers
flaring and some of the s*** that has gone on on this thread, I just
think God I wouldn't want that job! It's amazing anyone will do the job,
much less be able to do it well enough to keep the various clubs running.
And to those of you who take the "SCCA rules suck" position, that is the
exact reason why many, many clubs just adopt Solo 2 rules rather than
develope their own. Be greatful.
I hope this doesn't make me sound schitzophrenic, just MHO.
Jon FP 73
Too old to be stock competitive, anyway.
Datsun 260Z
|