richard nichols wrote:
> I promise that this will the last time I will make this point here, since it
> doesn't resonate with established autocrossers.
Possibly because it's in error, and those of us with some experience
recognize the error.
> IF a strategic objective of Solo II is for it to be inclusive, and a tactic
> for doing that is to keep it affordable, then the current system does not
> accomplish that.
So how would one explain the steady increase in participation levels,
particularly at higher-level events?
I know one National champion who typically bought wrecked cars for Stock
for less than $1500.00, and usually had less than $5k in the finished
ride. Additionally, his cars have been driven by subsequent owners to
National championships. Can you not afford THAT level of investement? If
not, how do you manage to keep a daily driver runing?
> Not when (expensive) full roll cages for chassis stiffness are allowed and
> (inexpensive) strut bars with more than 2 points are not.
You're confusing SP with Stock (non-original strut bars are not allowed
in Stock). The purpose of a roll bar/cage is to PROTECT THE DRIVER IN A
ROLLOVER. The simple fact is that a roll cage weighs enough that very
few SP competitors ever bother to install one: the added chassis
stiffness is more than offset by the weight gain.
> Not when (expensive if they're only good for the track) track-only racing
> tires are allowed, but street tires are not competitive.
That's been beaten to death here and in every other forum. There are
some pretty damn expensive (way more per tire than autox tires) STREET
tires that stick much better than the grocery-getters, too. Do you want
to outlaw those as well? It's not possible to prevent those who are
willing to spend money on tires from doing so to their advantage, and no
amount of rulesmaking will alter that. The present system is, by far,
less expensive than any attempts to restrict tire usage to "street"
tires.
> Not when a late-model $30,000 car competes in the same classes as a
> well-used $3,000 car.
See above. I've seen the well-used $3k cars win pretty often in that
sort of matchup, and I can tell you that the most expensive cars in a
class are not often the most competitive.
> Not when there are serious discussions about whether or not brake bleeders
> are allowed.
That's team.net, NOT SCCA or autocross in general. If discussions like
that don't interest you (they don't generally interest me), then there's
always the "Delete" key.
> Not when a protest could require a competitor to dismantle his/her engine to
> prove the block deck has not been reduced by more than the thickness of a
> piece of paper.
And, if they're to be torn down that far, the guy filing the paper has
had to put up money sufficient to cover the disassembly/reassembly, and
they likely have just won their class at Nationals. You're talking about
a very rare occurrence - you'll have to consider that possibility when
you're a threat to win your class in Topeka - and enough folks have
fudged on this kind of thing in the past that, IMHO, it's a strong
deterrent to cheating to know that's an option your competitor has. If
you win and don't want your motor torn down, you can always choose to go
home without your trophy. It's a personal decision as to whether the
trohpy's worth it, and some have declined the teardown.
> Not when a competitor could be d/q'd for using non-standard underhood vacuum
> or other hoses,
Wrong. Replacement hoses, belts, and other consumables ARE allowed, and
specifically so, by the rules.
> or having the heater core bypassed, or -- give me a break.
Exactly why WOULD your heater core be bypassed, anyway?
Jay
|