> dg50@daimlerchrysler.com wrote:
>> Well, then you've just killed off all the appeal for the vast majority of the
>> people STU is supposed to be for, "Sport Compact Car" riceboy types with
Talons,
>> Integras, Civics, Impressas, Cougars, and the like.
>> So no, the 2 seaters don't belong in STU. The weight disparity between the 4
>> seaters is bad enough at 700lbs-ish. I see no need to make it any worse.
Thanks for having the good sense to snip out the stuff you didn't feel needed to
be repeated, instead of reposting the whole thing. I can run a little longwinded
sometimes, and the list doesn't need to see the whole thing over and over again.
> Seems to me that you can't have it both ways. Either ST/STU is meant to appeal
to
> the import drag crowd ( lots of mods/ few rules/ mainly for novice drivers )
Stop right there, you've made your first mistake.
"Import Drag" (aka "Riceboys") does imply "lots of mods", primarily of the
bolt-on (as opposed to cut-and-weld) variety. "Lots of mods" in the Solo context
implies "few rules".
But "mainly for novice drivers" is DEAD WRONG. They may start out as novices,
but they won't stay newbies forever. All the ST classes are classes like any
other. They are not "inferior" or "easier" or "non-expert" or "minor-league" or
whatever.
Any class designed as a Novice class (outside of a Regional context) is doomed
to fail - what do the class members do when they get good? Surely we don't
expect an ST/STR/STU driver to switch to a "real" (heavy sarcasm) class once
they learn to drive?
The single concession that STU makes to it's "newness" is that it is somewhat
over-inclusive in the eligibility department, especially with regard to
displacement limits and vehicle weights. If you recall, our first kick at the
cat had a much lower displacement limit, and a minimum weight requirement. We
discarded that with the aim of getting more people into the class quicker.
Rather than try and design the "perfect class" we chose to err on the side of
inclusiveness, so that more people could get to play, and that more drivers
could get over the novice hump, and so we could get more data on how well the
vastly different cars eligible for this class actually worked together.
Then, once we have a well-populated class, and some decent drivers, and the
over/underdogs are starting to become apparent, we can think about breaking STU
apart into some more tightly defined classes to help keep the playing field
level.
We could try and define "perfect" classes up front, but then we'd spend more
time chasing our tails and hand-wringing making progresively more complex
classing schemes, and nobody would be doing any actual racing. "Perfect" is the
enemy of "Good Enough"
But in the short term, we have to take at least some rough steps aimed at
starting the field off as level as we can within our scope. One of those steps
is banning 2 seaters. There are a number of lightweight well-prepared 2 seaters
already out there waiting to to go (like the Harnish CRX) that are fully capable
of winning STU as they sit today - cars that already have classes. If we let
them in, not only do we kill off STU before it even has a chance to grow, we
also fulfill Roger's prophesy of new classes diluting the existing classes when
half the CSP Miatae and CRXen jump ship to go pound on STU. This is Bad. It's
bad for STU, and it's bad for CSP.
And as for everybody's favourite "STU-legal overdog car of the week" - not ONE
of these cars yet exist. Yeah, so maybe (say) an early Rabbit with a turbo New
Beetle motor might be an overdog. I don't see one yet. Nobody has built one.
Nobody knows if it will work - and until someone lays out the cash and time and
actually BUILDS one, all speculation on its performance is just that -
speculation.
And by the time someone goes out, builds one of these cars, works out the kinks,
and learns to drive it well enough to start winning, well, by that time the
fault lines in STU should have become apparent and we're ripe for the split. See
how that works? Dawinism at its finest.
This, incidently, is EXACTLY how the IDRC designed their top-level drag classes.
Start inclusive, see who shows up, and then adapt the classes TO WHAT IS
ACTUALLY BEING RUN. How do I know? I spent a lot of time with Mike Ferrara of
Turbo magazine and the IDRC trying to learn how to get STU to match the
demographic we intend to serve, and how they dealt with suprises. Their approach
worked. I think it will here too.
> If OTOH ST is supposed to be a class for people who have made too many mods to
their
> street cars to fit in SP then go ahead and make the competition fair.
This is it right here. It just so happens that the people who fit into the "too
may mods for SP" demographic are the same people who fit into the "riceboy"
demographic. They are one and the same. Two birds with one stone.
DG
|