autox
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: SM2 at Topeka

To: rbrown7@covad.net
Subject: RE: SM2 at Topeka
From: "Jeff Winchell" <Jeff@winchell.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 12:06:11 -0700 (PDT)
Maybe that's the REAL reason CP was so vehement against allowing any SP car to 
run in CP
using their DOT tires on possibly wider wheels than CP allows. Afraid of 
getting beat by
too many "slower" cars/drivers.<s>

"Rick Brown" wrote:

> 
> 
> &gt;&gt; I think you'll find that the top 5 to 10 cars in CP are built pretty
> &gt;&gt; damned well right now.  Can they be better?  Sure.  Can that be said 
>for
> &gt;&gt; _any_ class that allows modifications?
> 
> &gt;Well, I wouldn't want to cloud the issue with facts&lt;s&gt; ....
> 
> 
> Well, I'll weigh in on this one.  CP had 65 competitors at the 2000
> Nationals.  The winning time was 103.744 by Jesus Villereal. His margin of
> victory was 0.438 seconds over Ron Vermulm.   The winning BSP time of Ray
> Miller (104.542) would have put him 4th in CP.  The winning ESP time of Bob
> Tunnell (104.964) would also have put him 4th in CP. The second place ESP
> time of Mark Madarash  (88 Trans Am, 106.030) would have been good for 15th
> in CP and a trophy.  Finally, Curt Ormistons SS winning time (106.766)
> would have been good for 17th place in CP and the last trophy position.  Top
> 5 or 10 CP cars built pretty damned well?  Perhaps not.
> 
> Prepared rules since 1995 allow changing pickup points and modification of
> the chassis and frame without weight penalty to do so.  The potential now is
> there to make a section 15 car more competitive than a crossover race car
> that takes the weight penalty.
> 
> 
> --- Rick Brown
>     BP Corvette, 3080 pounds
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-autox@autox.team.net [mailto:owner-autox@autox.team.net]On
> Behalf Of Jeff Winchell
> Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2002 10:47 AM
> To: marka@telerama.com
> Cc: autox@autox.team.net
> Subject: Re: SM2 at Topeka
> 
> 
> &quot;Mark J. Andy&quot; wrote:
> 
> &gt;
> &gt; Howdy,
> &gt;
> &gt; On Thu, 8 Aug 2002 dg50@daimlerchrysler.com wrote:
> &gt; &amp;gt; CP is case in point. Somebody with a lot of money, access to the
> right
> &gt; &amp;gt; people, and the will to do so could build a car that would 
>likely
> &gt; &amp;gt; _decimate_ CP (look very, very carefully at the rules. A
> &amp;quot;proper&amp;quot; CP
> &gt; &amp;gt; car is something very much like a modern Trans Am or GT1 car - 
>how
> &gt; &amp;gt; many cars in CP even *approach* that standard? - with 
>construction
> &gt; &amp;gt; costs much on par with what it would cost to build a modern 
>Trans Am
> &gt; &amp;gt; or GT1 car)
> &gt;
> &gt; You know, I'm getting pretty sick of hearing comments like this, and
> &gt; especially my buddy's Jeff's.
> 
> I agree that it must be tough when the objective numbers shout down your
> hopes so loudly.
> 
> 
> &gt; How about you guys actually _build_ a car and come _decimate_ CP and
> &gt; _then_ talk about how easy it was?  At least one hotshoe driver last year
> &gt; tried to jump into the class.  As I recall, he didn't fare too well.
> 
> So using ONE DRIVER proves it can't be done? &lt;ROFL&gt;
> 
> &gt; I think you'll find that the top 5 to 10 cars in CP are built pretty
> &gt; damned well right now.  Can they be better?  Sure.  Can that be said for
> &gt; _any_ class that allows modifications?
> 
> Well, I wouldn't want to cloud the issue with facts&lt;s&gt; ....
> 
> but looking at the PAX performances of this year's NT and Nationals entrants
> at NT's, Pros
> and Divisionals and just taking the top 10 cars ...AS YOU SUGGEST....
> 
>         RANK CLASS              PAX      Total NT and Nationals Entrants
>            1 SS              85.837          99
>            2 GS              86.234          90
>            3 ES              86.303          78
>            4 FS              86.465          69
>            5 CS              86.576          93
>            6 ESP             86.626          53
>            7 HS              86.671          59
>            8 ASP             86.759          58
>            9 DS              86.784          67
>           10 BSP             86.843          38
>           11 STS             86.914          90
>           12 CSP             86.968          59
>           13 BS              86.980          99
>           14 AS              87.003          45
>           15 SM              87.417         103
>           16 FSP             87.495          47
>           17 FM              87.505          33
>           18 CP              87.546          66
>           19 F125            87.553          23
>           20 DP              87.857          24
>           21 DSP             87.994          49
>           22 FP              88.100          20
>           23 CM              88.367          46
>           24 BM              88.513          25
>           25 AM              89.350          19
>           26 EP              89.872          29
>           27 STX             90.377          25
>           28 EM              90.852          22
>           29 BP              90.911          12
>           30 SM2             91.681          31
>           31 DM              91.792          18
> 
> I can excuse the classes with a couple dozen entries for not having on
> average a great Top
> 10 PAX #. That leaves DSP, CM, EP and SM2 as the only classes having worse
> top 10 entrants
> than CP.
> 
> Class entry average, class entry average for those that entered an NT,
> Divisional or Pro,
> Top 10 drivers... every time I narrow the filter to make it more favorable
> for CP's cause,
> the answers keeping coming out the same.
> 
> CP is a soft class.
> 
> Deal with it.

///  unsubscribe/change address requests to majordomo@autox.team.net  or try
///  http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo
///  Partial archives at http://www.team.net/archive


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