Jay Mitchell wrote:
> I don't think this is _just_ about cost. It's also about whether a new
> Category such as this can attract and retain its target market. If it's
> a National class, I claim that experienced Solo competitors will take an
> interest in it, and they'll use every allowance in the rules to optimize
> a car for Solo II. At which point no drag-race setup will stand a
> chance. And retention of the target market will suffer.
I agree fully.
So if the goal is to keep the competitive drag-racing cars in the class,
and the Solo II specialized cars out, then why spec a new set of rules?
How about just saying that the cars must conform to whatever set of
rules the drag racers use?
This is just like CM. The rules for CM are road-racing rules. There
are some things that are allowable under the rules that might make for a
good autocross-only car, but the rules-makers wanted people to avoid
using those loopholes -- they wanted CM to be made up of cars that could
be put right back on the track tomorrow. So there's a rule
(clarification) that basically says that modifications made outside of
what would normally be used for road-racing equipment will be evaluated
by the SEB on a case-by-case basis. Not a great rule, 'cause it makes
the SEB do work explicitely, but it makes it clear that the intent is
"no SoloII-only cars".
Josh
|