Rocky Entriken wrote:
It did, however, work out that Stock>SP was a progression simply because
Stock was the base model and SP was the base model with stuff done to it.
For that matter, Prepared (originally the GCR Production rules) was the base
model with stuff done to it, but as we now see, different stuff (and perhaps
arguably, more stuff). It was GT that moved to the idea of building cars
that were not built off the base model, but off tubeframes.
<<
Agreed. Remember that SP starts with the stock category rules, then adds a
list of allowed modifications.
>>
BTW, just because SP and P go in different directions from Stock, does not
make one logical and the other not -- they are just different. Today they
must be accepted as such.
<<
OK, I understand your point. But I still hold that the GCR Production
rules, and therefore Solo II's Prepared rules, are not logical. I
understand how and why they are what they are and that "competition
adjustments" have perverted the original form. But still, a $10,000 full on
race motor breathing through a stock carb for the purpose of limiting its
potential is not logical. Neither are wheel limitations that have been made
irrelevant by cantilever tires. Perhaps we will just have to agree to
disagree on this one.
>>
We've managed to succeed and grow Solo II the past 22 years despite the fact
SP is not a natural progression from S to P. If anything, it has proven that
"natural progression" is probably a myth that never needed to be reality. If
someone wants to have a P car, he will build or buy a P car. It is a goal
unto itself. The driver doesn't really feel any need to have spent any time
in SP first.
<<
Agreed.
While I SP isn't a progression on the path to P, there are certainly cars
that have successfully made the journey. The model appears to be that one
can sell off the wheels and carbs (or FI system) used in SP to help finance
the new equipment required for P. Also, the recent adoption of aftermarket
FI systems in P will help reduce the problems with the transition. Adoption
of Steve Bollinger's proposal allowing wider wheels in P would all but
eliminate the problem. (This is of course another issue altogether and I
make no secret of being a supporter of Mr. Bollinger's proposal.)
Another successful model of progression is simply selling the complete SP
car and building a new P car. Because of the amount of work necessary to
build a successful P car, even when starting with a competitive SP car,
depending on the car selected, it may be easier to start with a fresh tub
and build up the new P car while still campaigning the SP car. Then selling
the SP car to re-coupe the investment in the new P car. A couple of recent
examples of this model are Chris Dorsey and the team of Kevin Wentzel and
Ian Mannix.
>>
But where all this jazz about "progression" arises anew is the FasTrack
query that began this thread, the idea of accommodating cars built to SP
rules in Prepared. Not needed, say I. Especially not needed is a fifth
ruleset in Prepared when we are already beleaguered by four. Nor does one
category of cars (SP) need two places to play.
<<
Agreed. Before a discussion ensues as to how this should be done, I would
like to know why it is to be done. I don't see any reason for the proposal.
Steve Hoelscher
#27 DSP
/// autox@autox.team.net mailing list
///
/// To unsubscribe send a plain text message to majordomo@autox.team.net
/// with nothing in it but
///
/// unsubscribe autox
///
/// or try http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
///
|