Thanks, Pat, for the constructive comments. Pat Washburn said:
> richard nichols wrote:
> >
> > I hope the List doesn't mind if I weigh in on this issue. BTW, I'm
really
> > glad that this has come up; it seems much more strategically "on
target"
> > than much of what I've seen in the few months I've been on-List.
> >
> We don't mind, you can say whatever you want :)
> confused, however, by the points made above. Your comparisons above all
> seem to relate to Street Prepared rules. The base discussion, at least
> as far as I have been able to follow along, relates primarily to Stock
> class cars, and how the increase in factory offered and low production
> performance options are changing our perceptions of what a "stock" car
> is and what should be allowed.
> You seemed to be making a very good
> point about not legislating certain Stock cars out of existence, and to
> not discourage technological developement in our sports cars, but you
> cited mostly Street Prepared rules as support. I certainly hope I
> didn't miss something here.
>
> I think I get your point. (If I completely missed it, please make sure
> to let me know.) Even if I did miss it, I thought it should be pointed
> out that these are not stock allowances just avoid confusion.
Thanks, it does seem that you get my point -- I appreciate that. And yes,
I know that these are references to SP rules.
Seems to me that Stock rules really measure only the commercial
availability of cars that can be raced "right out of the box", as we say in
sport shooting (handguns come in boxes, get it?).
But SP rules measure the ability of competitors and perhaps the aftermarket
to improve what the car makers came up with. That in turn improves the
cars themselves. And that improves what's available for S class. Which in
turn makes street driving more rewarding.
As a parallel: in professional competitive handgunning, the features that
competitors had to add themselves to the handguns of 20 or even 10 years
ago, have become standard features on sport, police, and military firearms
all over the world -- as have the training courses that were originally
developed strictly for competition. It's a "constructive circle".
I'd like to see rules that encourage participation, even if that means that
older cars can be prepped more than newer cars. Using DSP as an example,
the standard features of the Acura Legend were rare indeed on any car when
my 72 Ford Pinto was made, yet they compete in the same class (or did when
my 98 rulebook was made). And using ESP as an example, few of the
Fox-bodied Mustangs are basically any more technologically sophisticated
than the Pintos, suspension-wise, yet they're classed together with the
torque-arm equipped Camaros. Kudos to Chevy, of course. And according to
the latest R&T, Ford STILL hasn't brought their Cobra up to the level of
the Camaro.
I know there is an ST class in some regions, which I like the idea of
(though I understand that the engine m/b left alone). I've run
international sporting competitions, and know that rules always can be
designed around. The rules just have to keep pace -- that's evolution --
and not be so narrowly targetted.
Richard Nichols
San Diego, CA USA
rnichol1@san.rr.com
86 Ford Mustang SVO (61B) - 1C
(The Thinking Man's Mustang)
72 Ford Pinto 2.0 (62B) - 3J
(Over Three Million Served)
|