WOW! That was long...phew!
Keep those letters coming on the S2000. The membership seems to be split right
down the middle right now, so the SEB has to be taking a final look. Picked my
side of the fence already. You win some and you lose some. : )
Classing cars of similar types in similar classes was the *guideline* It simply
can't happen in all cases. The example you state (300ZX TT, 3000GT TT and Supra
TT), while it supports your argument, doesn't make the best sense for the
membership. While similar in design, the performance parameters of the Supra
far exceed the Nissan and the Mitsu for Solo2 applications. Would it be right
to group them together in Class 2 (to the detriment of the other 2 cars) just
because they are similar in some ways? Should the SEB move the Supra into Class
3 to be mated to the others for the same reason? I say no. There are
exceptions to every rule and it wouldn't have been the right thing to do (IMHO)
to just start lumping like cars together without taking a closer look at each
one.
The C4/C5/ZR-1 issue is a tough one. Write you letters on that one too! Not
sure what side of the fence I am on that one either...
To say that the members of the SCAC have let there class situation cloud there
judgment is a little harsh, don't you think? The only significant change to AS
(Class 3) was the removal of the S2000, which you deem uncompetitive in there
anyway. Is that the only fast you are basing that accusation on? I hope not.
I have written my letter, everyone else should too.
Respectfully,
Andy Bettencourt
BTW: The SCAC is made up of 1 SS, 1ES, 2 AS and 1 FS driver...seems OK to me.
***The opinions above do not necessarily represent the views of other SCAC
members***
Gary Thomason <gtsolo2@home.net> on 07/06/2000 01:48:17 AM
Please respond to Gary Thomason <gtsolo2@home.net>
To: "autox@autox.team.net" <autox@autox.team.net>
cc: (bcc: Andrew Bettencourt/FIELD SALES/Kingston)
Subject: Re: Stock reclassification???? the answer (VERY LONG)
David Hawkins wrote:
> I find the placement of the S2000 to be very interesting....
> the car seems to be fitting right into AS and now it's
> proposed for the lower SS.
>
> David 'no dog in this fight' Hawkins
> 93 Mr2 Turbo EM
> 86 Mr2 CSP in pieces
> 86 Turbo Cressida EM
David and I have agreed to disagree in the past, but he couldn't be
more right with this one. Results for the year so far show that with
the exception of only one major event, if anything, the Boxster is
superior to the S2000. In my opinion, the specifications for these
two vehicles are mostly in favor of the Boxster. Even more telling,
I have driven both and performed instrumented testing using state-of-
the-art equipment on these vehicles as part of my job.
Taken as a whole, the measured maximum track performance of the two
is quite close, with the most important difference being that the
Boxster was surprisingly friendly and manageable to drive at the limit,
and the S2000 was just the opposite - twitchy, nervous and generally
uncooperative in the same situations. Acceleration is also very close,
as long as the S2000 is kept in its stratospheric powerband. This
is somewhat difficult given the fairly tall gearing (tall considering
the motorcycle-style powerband). The S2000 has a maximum torque rating
of only 153 lbs-ft at 7500rpm. Most of us know through experience
that torque is much more important than horsepower in the typical
autocross, which helps to explain why a 245hp L98 C4 Corvette is
normally faster in an autocross environment than the 405hp ZR-1.
If some of you who know me are wondering at this point why I bought
the S2000 instead of a Boxster, it was pretty simple for me - the
Honda is over $10K cheaper, and personally I don't like the Boxster's
exterior styling. OTOH, I think the S2000 is very striking from almost
any angle. No contest. Sorry GH ;-)
The Boxster and S2000 should be classed together, wherever that may be.
As for the proposed stock class re-structuring, I happen to think
most of it is fine, with a few glaring exceptions. They (the SCAC)
make a statement about classing similar type cars together as a general
goal, and then promptly do just the opposite in many cases. I cannot
imagine three cars more alike in every way than the 300ZXTT, Supra TT,
and Stealth/3000GT TT, and yet there they are, right in front of
us, listed in different classes. At the same time we are to believe the
2.0L 4-cyl, 6.5/7.5 inch wheel, 2750 lb. S2000 is similar in some way
to a Camaro SS, 928GTS, Shelby Cobra, Saleen Mustang, DeTomaso Mangusta,
and the C4 Corvette?? That is simply absurd. I suppose they all do have
4 wheels and a windshield, but that's really about it.
Glaring exception number two: the fastest Corvette gets moved
*down* a class? The C4 has consistently proven, over a period of many
years, to be slightly faster than the ZR1 or the C5. The new Z06
model C5 *may* finally un-seat the C4 as the one to have, but that is
pure speculation at this point. The performance of the C4, past and
present C5, and the ZR1 is so close in any case that separating
them into different classes is not realistic by any stretch of the
imagination. Yet again, the proposal has split very similar cars into
different classes, and conversely, put the 153lb-ft weakling S2000 up
against 400lb-ft supercars. Looking at the proposed Class 2, the C4
Corvette will clearly dominate, with the unproven $54K Boxster S a
possible threat once in a while. If the M-Coupe get a power injection
next year, it could be close. If it gets the powertrain of the new
M3, I assume it would be classed in Super-Duper stock with that car.
Mark Sipe has mentioned here and elsewhere the potential problems
created by the over-abundance of past and present A-Stock drivers
on both the SCAC and the SEB. I'm sorry to say it, but after looking
at this proposal, IMHO, I have to agree that it appears some members
of the SCAC at least have possibly let their personal situation cloud
their better judgment.
The issues surrounding the SS Camaro/WS6 are also a bit sticky.
The most often stated reason for not putting them in F-Stock has to
do with fairly legitimate concerns about verifying what was actually
factory equipment on these specialty cars. Consequently, they have
(so far) been classed where they would be unlikely to be competitive.
Fine. Then why move them down where they may very well become
competitive (at least if no C4's show up)?? If these concerns are
no longer a problem, then put them in F-Stock where the current
LS1 Camaros now make just as much, or more power than these cars do.
The new ones even have the Torsen.
On the plus side, at least the Integra Type-R has been put where it
belongs, and of course, this is only a proposal. Hopefully, it will
undergo some evolution over time.
Gary Thomason
hoping to be able to keep up with McKee, Sharp, Goeke, etc. at Topeka.
|