guy ankeny wrote:
> I see most people in AP, and on the net, have based this "hate" mail
> towards " the Big Bucks".
I think they're mistaken to take that attitude.
> I saw his runs, he drove great-give him credit.
> Give him credit, also for having the guts to go for it in something
> relatively untested,( in auto-cross situations).
I didn't see his runs, but anyone who wins their class at Nationals
deserves a lot of credit.
> Caliber of Greg hadn't been driving, there would be no controversy.
I just took a look at the Prepared rules, and it doesn't seem
controversial to me. If their car is legal under this year's GTCS, it's
legal in Prepared, as long as the appropriate weight penalties are
observed. I think that's an incredibly short-sighted allowance to have
in the rules, but it's in there. Just one more reason I won't be making
my car into a Prepared ride.
> To say
> something costs too much, is pretty ridiculous.
Agreed. However, I would want to be able to look ONLY at the Solo II
rules and see every car I might encounter specifically listed, or at
least know the catch-all restrictions that would apply. I definitely
don't want to have to study the GTCS, GCR, and PCS every year in
addition to the Solo II rules, but that appears to be necessary under
the present system.
> Greg and that car could be beat for a lot less-but it would take some real
> thinking.
It's certainly a possibility. It's interesting to me that, on the
departure of the Babb Lotus, AP finds yet another issue to argue.
> That is what makes this Sport SPECIAL, and very difficult.
I applaud anyone with the car prep expertise to find an advantage nobody
else has discovered. I still think that every model that is legal in
Prepared should be specifically listed in the Solo II rules, along with
the allowed engine displacements, minimum weights, etc. Otherwise,
there's the distinct possibility of the whole class being blind-sided by
an unnoticed change in the road racing rules.
Jay "put it all in one book" Mitchell
|