Next time, READ my posts. Then, I'll make you a bet.
>> 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.
REread my comment -- what you said here has nothing to do with what I SAID.
The key words were "inclusive" and "affordable". It makes your own point
very nicely, though.
>So how would one explain the steady increase in participation levels,
>particularly at higher-level events?
So, what you're telling me (if I heard you right) is that this competitor
bought cars specifically for autocrossing? Nope, I can't justify that -- I
autocross only to improve my street cars and my street driving. But then I
recall a seasoned competitor telling me "autcross has nothing to do with
street driving", so it IS very Quixotic of me to persist.
>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.
See my point?
> Can you not afford THAT level of investement? If
>not, how do you manage to keep a daily driver runing?
And I'm not confusing anything when I make this comment. My comments were
directed at S and SP in general, and not solely to either class. Read my
post.
>> 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.
And think about what you said here, and then about what's REALLY done.
Which is more expensive, a set of the best tires on the wheels of a
daily-driven street car, or a set of racing tires on a set of special wheels
that are TRAILERED in, for crying in the dark.
>> 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. >
In responding to another post (which also was from someone who didn't
actually READ my post), I admitted that I had tunnel vision here, and was
focusing on FS and ESP where I compete. My apologies.
>> 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.
But read my post again. I didn't complain about these discussions, only
about the notion that such mods really could be illegal. But I AM
encouraged -- you're the second person to tell me that what I'm reading on
team.net are not illustrative of autocrossing.
>> 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
Again, you didn't read my post. My focus was on INCLUDING people, not how
thoroughly rules are enforced. Of course if that's the rule it should be
enforced. I just think it's representative of rules that EXCLUDE rather
than INCLUDE competitors. My own car is bone stock, including the deck.
Check it out if you've got the $$$$.
>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.
You did remind me earlier that team.net posts are not illustrative of real
autcrossing. I had the mistaken belief from actually READING recent posts
that there WAS a problem with using non-standard turbo outlet hoses and
boost control hoses and clamps, for example. Guess those posters stand
corrected.
>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.
Read the post, please. And by the way, because I autocross a DAILY DRIVER
instead of an autocross only vehicle, there was a period of time when my
heater core was bypassed because it had failed. Didn't want to spend $800
to have it fixed, either, but I'll bet it didn't improve my times any.
>Exactly why WOULD your heater core be bypassed, anyway?
Now for the bet I made: that your response will show that you didn't read
THIS post thoroughly, either. But you'll notice that I read yours very
carefully -- nice to be heard, isn't it?
Remember, the rules are made by people, not handed down from the Mount. I
was attempting to get a constructive dialogue going here, but now that I
understand this is the wrong forum . . ..
Richard Nichols
rnichol1@san.rr.com
San Diego, CA
|