Charlie Davis wrote:
>Okay, DON'T talk amongst yourselves, tell the SCAC and SEB. As someone who
Was on the committee when we tried to eliminate low production volume cars
(the proposal was shot down by letters from a few Morgan owners), I still
believe that there are a lot of Stock Category cars that should go straight to
SP. We (the SCAC, when it started in '86) inherited a bunch of those cars,
grandfathered in. I believe that the Type R is one of the cars that shouldn't
be in Stock. 1300 in 2 years just isn't enough. I just want to see what the
general opinion is on team.net.
>CHD
Since 1986, we've had a lot of good ideas that have been eclipsed by
technological and production line changes. The idea of a "pure" stock car
is one of them. Every quarter(year) it seems we get a new tweak. This
quarter it's the Mustang Cobra SVT. Plenty of numbers (3,000/yr.)
according to Ford, but with all these extra goodies when compared to its
older F-Stock Mustang stable mates, is it really "stock"? My opinion is
that this is an evolving game, and the tighter we try to make our grip on
stock, the more cars will slip through it. So, it's always going to be a
tough call, and people like Charlie are needed to question where we're
going. It's healthy and worthwhile to ponder. Look, I can't guarantee
anyone that the Type-R will remain in G-Stock, or move to D-Stock, but
wouldn't put money on it going to a street prepared class. If it was 1982,
sure it would. But the whole concept of Street Prepared has evolved way
beyond where it was ten or fifteen years ago, and so has Stock. Over the
years, the SEB and SCAC have done a good job of trying to balance what the
membership wants to do with "Stock" against what has traditionally been
done. It's like continually reengineering a Microslop program that has to
be backwards compatible with a 286 computer. We've tried one size fits all
concepts- to only mediocre effect. Not everybody is going to be happy with
the status quo. So, just like Microslop, we've got development bugs.
Unlike Microslop, we can't bully the manufacturers within our market into
seeing the world through our windows. We can't tell Ford, Acura, or anyone
else to play the game our way and make the cars "Stock". Charlie's stock
is stock paradigm might have worked if it could have been implemented in
the 1980s- AND, if Street Prepared had not evolved since then. Today,
however, we'd disenfranchise a lot of car owners. Among them, people with
the Neon ACR, the Type R, the BMW M-anything, any Porsche with M030 sport
suspension, and on and on. I would love to go back and find a way to
reengineer the status quo, but that isn't going to happen- not with the
kinds of cars that are being produced today, and not with the way in which
some of these cars are being produced. (Shortened production runs to
maximize profits, or staunch red ink, or out-sourcing through
SLP/SVT/Mugen/M/YouNameIt collaborations or "special options".) The line
between Stock and what one might consider Street Prepared is blurring.
Charlie and others are right to question what's going on. We're being
forced to make tougher calls than we had to in the past with respect to
what constitutes a modern "stock" sports car.
Thus, the question of "What is Stock?" could be answered differently in
each succeeding year. Even the seemingly tranquil island of C-Stock -a
class made up of true "sports cars" of recent vintage- is contested within
the membership. It too will change as cars like the Miata 1.6 are
eventually moved into it, having outlived their competitive life in
B-Stock. And with all the other classes, even if we change nothing, the
cars will change and with them the nature of Stock. That's my personal take
on it.
Rich Fletcher
Chair, SCAC
PS- my spell checker suggests G-String to replace G-Stock...
|