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.
IMHO, you might assign too much value to a few responses on team.net as
indicative of established autocrossers. The vast majority of
autocrossers (thousands!) are not on team.net and probably could care
less about the minutia that is discussed here.
Thankfully I enjoy
> autocrossing for the driving, not for the winning, and gauge my own
> performance against the very fastest cars that raced that day anyway.
I think a lot of folks don't even care about the other cars and only are
out there to have fun or learn. This is all well and good. Even quite a
few drivers I met at Nationals were not there to win, but to enjoy the
experience.
>
> My point (and it may be based on another "invalid premise":
>
> 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.
Understood, but consider that the tactic is to keep it affordable at the
national level, which may seem to have some unfortunate impacts at the
local level. Key word may be *seem*. It doesn't have to.
>
> To wit:
>
> Not when (expensive) full roll cages for chassis stiffness are allowed and
> (inexpensive) strut bars with more than 2 points are not.
Roll cages are a safety item, and it allows track racers to autocross
and it carries a severe weight penalty, that to me, is worse than the
gain from the stiffness. I am not addressing the strut bars issue. I
agree that some of the rules don't make a lot of sense. Again, a lot of
this at the local level is not a big deal. I do think it's a great idea
to encourage local classes with common street mods.
>
> Not when (expensive if they're only good for the track) track-only racing
> tires are allowed, but street tires are not competitive.
Well, there is a difference of opinion in this. As discussed before,
street tires can be very expensive, and if you really want to win, they
will cost more than R tires. You just move the bar a bit, but solve
little. The complaint then becomes "how come we allow those $300 street
tires if we want the folks who ride on Cheapo tires to be competitive.
IMHO.
>
> Not when a late-model $30,000 car competes in the same classes as a
> well-used $3,000 car.
I don't have a problem with this as long as the well-used $3000 car can
beat the other car, and I know many examples where this is true. I think
the powers that be are sensitive (yet not perfect!) to not letting an
expensive car dominate a class. Look at the car costs of many trophing
cars and you see many affordable examples. However, affordable is a very
subjective term. This is not a cheap sport, and I don't agree that the
intention nationally is to make the sport affordable to everyone.
>
> Not when there are serious discussions about whether or not brake bleeders
> are allowed.
Team.Net issue. I doubt local drivers care.
>
> 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.
Would not happen locally. Show up with a turbo bolted on locally and I
could care less. And *most* national drivers do not do weenie protests,
perceptions to the contrary from team.net discussions. IMHO.
>
> Not when a competitor could be d/q'd for using non-standard underhood vacuum
> or other hoses, or having the heater core bypassed, or -- give me a break.
See above. Richard you can run you Mustang in my class for all I care.
Show up, have fun, drive fast. That is where the focus should be. As for
me, I add "hit cones". 8)
>
> I promise, I'm done!
Sure...easy promises. 8) See you at our next local event. I will bring
extra gas. 8)
Randy Chase
'91 MR2 C/S
|