If I read your comment correctly, I suspect that if you reread MY comment
you'll see that we "agree" on this one, too.
I'm simply making the point that, the way Stock class is set up, there is so
little that can be done to the car that there is little automotive ingenuity
involved in fielding a competitive car (just a whole lot of driving skill
and the money to buy the latest, most competitive car).
If autocrossing wants more competitors, the equipment rules need to be more
inclusive. If a skillful driver can compete and win with a brand-new Camaro
that cost as much as $30k, then I ought to be able to field a comparable,
older car and spend as much as $30k bringing it up to snuff.
Instead he/she can have a car with more money in the wheels and tires than I
have in my whole car, but I can't put a $100 three-point strut brace in
mine.
Otherwise it's just a money game, which is fine for those who take this
very, very seriously. But for encouraging more entry level players, what
better classes than STOCK and STREET PREPARED to include them?!
>IMHO, Stock class IS a measure of one's ability to afford and then choose
>a
>late-model competitive car -- and then drive it well. :)
>
>could not disagree more. Cars should be classed with old and new even.
>If a new car is need every 4 years then the price of winning getting as
>high as road racing. If you have to spend that kind of money to be
>competitive at this level why not move up and get 18 laps of seat time
>instead of 55 seconds. Remember, this is the bottom rung of sports car
>racing, the bottom should not catch the top.
Richard Nichols
rnichol1@san.rr.com
San Diego, CA
|