Heyward K Wagner wrote:
> 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.
First, a new car is NOT needed "every four years" in order to be
competitive in Stock. Look at event results at the higher levels, and
you will see that, in a number of classes, it is possible to win with an
older car. In 1992 at the Solo II Nationals, a Porsche 912 trophied in
ES, and in 1993, so did a 13-year-old 924. 914s and Datsun Z-cars also
won or trophied in Stock well into this decade. If National level
competitors CHOOSE to run newer cars, that's their choice, but there's
no coercion involved.
> 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.
There are lots of us who don't consider that a move up.
> Remember, this is the bottom rung of sports car
> racing, the bottom should not catch the top.
No, it's NOT. It's a separate competitive sport with some historical
common ground other forms of motorsport competition. Lots of successful
road racers aren't very good autoxers, and vice versa. And lots of
successful autoxers have no desire whatever to go road racing.
If you want to make recommendations for Solo, they should be based on
Solo considerations, not some misguided "career path" concept.
Jay
|