richard nichols wrote:
> Next time, READ my posts.
I did that earlier. Although the neither the tone nor the organization
of your response are calculated to motivate one to pay close attention,
I'll take the trouble to reply.
> REread my comment -- what you said here has nothing to do with what I SAID.
> The key words were "inclusive" and "affordable".
Read the Solo II Rules, Section 2.3, on page 3 of the 1999 book, where
it says "Core Values."
The word "affordable," wisely left out of the Core Values section, has
all sorts of possible interpretations. In my view, Solo II IS affordable
by a very wide range of individuals. Apparently you don't agree. I'd say
that, in general, Solo II does a pretty good job of supporting the core
values stated in the rule book. Not to say that I agree with all the
Solo II rules or all the interpretations thereof that have been invoked
by the SCCA and its officials.
> So, what you're telling me (if I heard you right) is that this competitor
> bought cars specifically for autocrossing?
No, but I won't accuse YOU of failing to READ my post, I'll just point
out that you perceived a statement that wasn't there. The individual I
described DROVE his cars every day.
> Nope, I can't justify that -- I
> autocross only to improve my street cars and my street driving.
Then why is it that you perceive such a problem? Does autocross not
"include" you? And does it not enable you to improve your street cars
and your street driving?
> > Can you not afford THAT level of investement? If
> >not, how do you manage to keep a daily driver runing?
> See my point?
You're failing to MAKE one. If, as I pointed out, you can wind up with a
nationally-competitive autox car that also will function as a daily
driver for under $10k, and that's not "affordable," then I'd suggest
there's a chance you can't afford to maintain a street car.
> 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.
You apparently haven't observed, then, the general lack of roll cages in
SP cars. They're allowed, but they add more weight than their stiffening
function can compensate for. Ergo, you COULD spend the money, but you'd
likely be wasting it if you thought it would provide a competitive
advantage.
> 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.
In many cases, really high-performance (and high-dollar) street tires,
when used for autox and street driving, will cost more than buying a
second set of wheels and mounting autocross rubber. Check prices on
Michelin MXX and similar tires, compare those with prices of the same
size autocross tires, and consider the cost of one or more new sets of
the Michelins every season (which WILL be necessary if you autocross
actively) as compared to the cost of replacing your autocross rubber
with the same frequency. Been there, done that. A full season of
autocrossing on street tires can get expensive real fast. And consider
that the autocross tires outperform even the most expensive
non-competition tires. I consider that excellent value. You apparently
disagree.
> But read my post again. I didn't complain about these discussions, only
> about the notion that such mods really could be illegal.
ANY modification not specifically authorized is illegal, and you DID
complain about the discussion. That doesn't mean anyone would ever get
disqualified over brake bleeders. If I were on the protest committee and
somebody tried to protest something like that, my vote would be to
decline to hear the protest.
>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.
That discussion was about installing clamps where the manufacturer had
not installed any. THAT is illegal, but THAT is not what you said:
>Not when a competitor could be d/q'd for using non-standard underhood vacuum
>or other hoses,
Nothing about turbos or clamps there.
> Guess those posters stand
> corrected.
No, YOU stand corrected.
> Read the post, please. And by the way, because I autocross a DAILY DRIVER
Lots of national champions have won in their daily drivers. In 1993,
Steve Brolliar drove back to Huntsville, Alabama, from Salina, Kansas,
in the Protege in which he'd taken 3rd at the Solo II Nationals in E
Stock, ON HIS COMPETITION TIRES. He left the tires on the car, drove it
regularly for the next five or six weeks, and won ES at the Atlanta
National Tour on the SAME tires. Now, what's your point exactly?
> 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.
And I'll just bet none of your competition would have protested you if
they'd known it was disconnected. Again, what's your problem? In most
areas of the country, a nonfunctional heater would be intolerable. It's
certainly unsafe, as you have no defrost capability. In any case, I'll
bet you weren't prevented from running because of your heater core. Is
it also your position that Solo II should also allow you to run on
recaps because they're cheaper?
Jay "READ your post, STILL say you're wrong" Mitchell
|