Well I guess we disagree! I am telling you the reason it moved, peroid. If you
don't think it was the right thing to do, that is fine as well but that was the
reason; to add another popular, inexpensive car that fit the performance
parameters into a class which gives the membership a place to run fun cars
without having to take out a loan - CS.
AB
SCAC and former Fiero owener
"Dan Morency" <DMorency@gwi.net> on 07/14/2000 09:05:06 AM
Please respond to "Dan Morency" <DMorency@gwi.net>
To: "autox" <autox@autox.team.net>
cc: (bcc: Andrew Bettencourt/FIELD SALES/Kingston)
Subject: re: Miata 1.6 move
Andrew, very nice explanation of the reason for the Miata move, too bad it
doesn't make sense from a competition point of view. So we move a car down a
class not because it belongs there but because the cars that do are getting
old? 2nd generation RX7's went till '92, Fiero's until '88 2nd generation
MR2's until '95? but we need to move '91-9? 1.6 Miata's to keep the class
fresh? Has there been a shortage of participants in CS?
I'm sorry but the logic doesn't seem to wash. Age should NOT be a criteria.
If you were to poll those who run 924's, Fiero's and MR2's I don't think
that you will find parts shortage issues or car availability issues. Fiero's
in particular are generic GM parts bin cars with a few exceptions. Parts are
easy to find and cheap! Wake up and smell the coffee! Cars get moved based
on performance and letter writing campaigns. Miata's are very prolific and
have a large voice. The other cars in the class are small in number and were
over run by a loud voice of Miata owners. If there is not a class worth of
difference then the car was moved in error. We have even seen the drivers of
1.8 Miata's suggest that the new version should be classed differently than
their cars.
I accept the fact that 88 Fiero's are in the same class of my 86, even with
very significant differences that are very important in an autocross. An
even more obvious example was given in a previous post. Own and old F body
Camaro or Firebird with a V8 around 200 HP and run in the same class as a
far stiffer, better suspended newer model of the same approximate weight
with around 300 HP. They didn't get separate classes with a huge performance
disparity. Never mind an identical car with a measly 200 cc increased
displacement and how many more ponys? Miata owners need to do likewise and
live in BS where they belong. Your forest through the trees analogy is
hogwash.
Your post is shown below:
Dan Morency
1986 CS Fiero SEV6
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 15:42:01 -0700
From: Andrew_Bettencourt@kingston.com
Subject: Re: More Fiero - CS and Miata 1.6l
OK, let's also stop comparing the Miata 1.6 --> 1.8 situation to the Fiero
1985
through 1987 --> 1988. The Miata 1.6 was not moved because there was a
large
contingent of people asking for it. It was not moved because there was a
'classes' worth of difference between the two. And it certainly wasn't
moved
because Mazda pays well in the contingency arena. (Before Mr. Foster claims
as
much)
It was moved to keep CS "fresh". The class has been designed to be an
affordable sports car class. As the Fiero, 924S and MR2 all age, decent
examples get increasingly hard to find. Parts become scarce and reliability
suffers. The inclusion of the 1.6l versions was to infuse a car that was
plentiful, built in large numbers, and fit the performance parameters of
the
class as well as the basic philosophy of the class. As the prices on those
cars
dropped, it became a solution based on the CLASSES needs, not the CARS
needs.
To address the original post for James, as far as the pre 88's vs. the 88's:
New replaces old. Simple as that when there is a relatively small
performance
gain.
Andy "Seeing the forest through the trees" Bettencourt
|