washburn wrote:
> Not to continue this un-necessarily, nor do I really wish to get into an
> argument, but I guess I was wondering how the driver and car fit into
> all this?
As I said in my opening statement (would the court recorder please read
back the opening statement?), I felt that all of the cars were equally
capable. Perhaps some were better prepared than others, but I didn't
see any real overdogs in the hardware.
> Their *tires* beat you? I'm not trying to pick on you, but
> I'm glad I'm not one of the other drivers who's "tires" are the only
> reason they beat the rest of the class.
I'm not attempting to discount the driver in any way, I've stated and
will state again that there were some outstanding drivers in the class.
Certainly those who took home trophies would not have done so had they
not been talented drivers! But, tires factor into the equation.
You can't win Nationals on just any tire. Look at stock classes. Do
you see any Toyos in the trophies? (poor choice for comparison, very few
drivers were on Toyos) What about Yokohamas? You can still get an
A008RS for a reasonable price. No, those are not the tires to have.
Similarly, there are "top dog" tires in ST. My gripe is that a) those
tires are not available in a wide enough range of sizes, and b) in my
opinion, ST isn't about spending a whole lot more on competitive street
tires than you would have to spend on R-tires.
> Is your message that they won because they outspent you?
They beat ME because I wasn't driving well, didn't have grippy enough
tires, and my car is not set up as much as the rules allow.
> If your looking for a controversy about tire makes in ST, I just don't
> see it. The best car/ driver/ tire/ day/ course/... combination won the
> event. The 68 dollar tires did just as well as the 200 tires IMHO,
> especially considering what they were mounted on. Maybe next season
> will see a tire make diminance take shape, but I guess I don't see it
> based on this event.
I don't want to see this tire dominance take shape. I'd rather see it
dissipate before then because I don't think it will be good for the
class. If things pan out as I see it, you'll have to have 16" wheels
and $250 tires to win a National level ST class. Not everyone needs or
wants 16" wheels on their car, and not everyone is okay with the idea of
spending that much on a tire for this sort of car. (I'd "buy off" on the
money issue, but the availability is a critical item)
> If your looking for excuses as to why certain
> people won and certain people went home from Nationals empty handed, do
> like I do: check the mirror. To continue to throw out "yeah but's..."
> just unfairly takes away from the their victory and just comes off as
> sour grapes. Just my opinion.
Your point is accepted, however, I never expected to take a trophy home
from Nationals. I knew my car wasn't fully prepared, I knew I didn't
have the right tires (even AVS's are notably better than P700's), and I
was pretty sure I didn't have the skills. (that last one turned out to
be more true than I initially thought)
> I went home dissappointed myself this year, but I have a *real* excuse.
> Daddio is a freakin' alien. He is now known as "Kazoo". We have
> determined that 2nd place in DS is "First Human". Congrats to all who
> did a fine job in Topeka!
When you're talking about D Stock, where everyone has the same car, same
setup, same tires, perhaps different paint schemes <grin>... there is no
doubt about which factor in the equation was responsible for a win.
When you're talking about ST where the Honda that chooses to run 13"
wheels has no tire options anywhere near as good as other cars on
16's... you just can't say that. (Where would Ron have placed if the
top two cars had been on Yok's? It's impossible to guess.)
--
Loren Williams | Homepage - http://home.kscable.com/shad
'94 Saturn SC2 | Wichita Region SCCA - http://www2.southwind.net/~scca
|