This came out rather long. Do I get double credit for the top posters list?
As both a former GS competitor and a current SCAC type, maybe I ought to
say something here.
Way back when the '88 CRX was the top dog in DS, the Neon Coupe came out
and got classed there. I bought a Neon, not for performance reasons
(though I doubt that the CRX would be a particularly good car in DS these
days due to the damping technology on the Neons) but because the CRX would
have needed a lot of maintenance to deal with fatiguing parts (bushings,
bearings, etc). It was a LOT easier to just go buy a Neon and start making
modest monthly payments.
On to the end of 1998, and a similar situation with the MX-6, which was at
the time an accepted "good" car for GS, but not the dominant one; GS was
also looking extremely healthy, with an unusually wide variety of vehicles
showing promise. Team Butt Meat (oh wait, that's CP - insert "Heat" back
there) and I swapped back and forth all year. It looked like the MX-6 and
A4 were very well matched, with any advantage one had on any particular
course being pretty minor despite the differences in the cars. The Talon
clones were discovered, partly by accident, and that pretty much signed the
warrant on the MX-6, especially for Pro Solo. But it was something like 5
weeks before Nationals that the Type R was classed. Yes, I know this isn't
the SCAC's fault, but that's when it was printed in Sports Car so that's
when it's official. Fast forward to Topeka. If not for silly cones, two
of the three drivers in Type R's would have been first and second. That's
with almost no time to set up the cars or to learn to drive them. Yeah,
that was Neal Sapp and Bob Endicott, but the class had a LOT of depth.
I retired the MX-6, purely for performance reasons. Mine was all set up,
all the maintenance done for several years of autocrossing. It's a really
nice car to autocross. If there's any chance in hell of doing well. Check
out the results. Bob Endicott hit a cone on every one of his runs the
second day. That was just ALMOST enough to let me catch him. Granted, I
had one rear strut which wasn't damping, but I really doubt that that made
as much difference to the performance of that car as did another year of
development to the Type R. On the positive side, it's a really nice street
car....
Now that people have had time to do a bit of development on the Type Rs, I
think GS a one car class. Sure, there are a lot of DSMs showing up these
days - long overdue since they've been in the class quite a while now - but
I really don't think they are going to threaten to win at Topeka. The Type
R just works too well. And people are learning how to drive them (never
lift - the Torsen will take care of everything :-)
Yep, GS has changed. The long list of cars which were good before (Flat
Rock twins, A4, 'Lude, F-Bodies, etc) are not all that good any more. I do
wish them luck, but I think Ron Bauer did the smart thing this year, and
will likely reap the rewards. Rain would make it interesting (in which
case an A4 or MX-6 would once again be a good idea) but it is rarely we on
both days, and 2 or 3 seconds is awefully hard to make up. Oh well, "new
replaces old", right?
As to a solution? I am not really sure where the Type R would work. There
just aren't cars like it out there. Performance potential seems to say up
in the AS - CS range. I think it would dominate DS, though less so in Solo
II than Pro Solo. Though if the end of the Neon contingency is truly here,
we will be seeing a lot fewer of them and maybe DS is available? I do
think the DSM cars belong with them, though as I mentioned I think the Type
R is the better autocross car. They do have very similar suspensions, the
DSM has a power advantage, but the Type R has a huge weight advantage, and
it's a Honda - like BMWs, Hondas seem to run a bit faster on an autocross
course than they do on paper.
Wow - one week from now I'll be in Topeka, hopefully sleeping and savoring
a win in P4 :-)
Paul and Meredith Brown
MR2: "Not the easiest car in the world to work on"
|