>Paul Czarnecki wrote:
>
> >
> > I really don't care how ST (or my fav, STR) was created. What is
> > good about ST (and STR) is that it provides a place to play (and be
> > competitive) for a type of car that was MISSING from the previous
> > competition matrix.
> >
>
>True, and I think that is important to allowing different cars in, but I
>also buy in to Roger's main point that currently the drivers in this
>class have been around for awhile, thus we are not really bringing in a
>lot of new participants.
Oh yes, STR is a place for experienced, serious, autocrossers to
play. It isn't a beginners or novice class. Maybe the creators used
a false argument to get it created, that's a shame, but I am glad it
is there. If I didn't have my heart set on an emissions legal DMod,
(and if I was autoxing more than once or twice a year :-) I'd be
building an STR car now.
> My personal thought this year was (I know I
>will catch hell for this!) that perhaps this should be the future of
>Street Prepared?
yes!
> In my mind, STR fits what I thought SP was supposed
>to be when I first started learning about SCCA class structure. I don't
>think we need new classes either, but I do think that some classes may
>need updating occasionally to keep up with the direction the auto
>industry takes us.
Except that a lot of folks LIKE SP and like running it. I see no
reason to change it, but I do see a reason to provide an alternative
for the future.
pZ
--
Paul Czarnecki
|