jon e prevo wrote:
> Okay, you are straying from the issue.
I disagree.
> Your analogy fits in the scenario
> of one driver starting in a kart from age 6, taking driving
schools
> repeatedly while growing up, obtaining an SCCA licence at 16
and then
> moving into autocross, where he will clearly be dominant
because of his
> lifetime of experience as opposed to someone like me who was
not raised
> on a race track.
And what does it cost to get all that practice? You got it,
money. Is it _fair_ that one kid is born into the opportunity and
another one deson't even find out about the sport until he's 30?
No. Anyway, the effect of money (and time) spent improving the
driver is much more dramatic than money spent improving the car,
and you get to keep the driver improvements even after you sell
the car.
> My analogy was of two _equal_ drivers, in different
> versions of the same car.
If you consider two drivers of similar capabilities in two Stock
cars, one of which has only tires and "budget" (or original)
shocks, the other of which has tires + expensive shocks, I'd say
that you can't necessarily predict the outcome. Depends entirely
on how effective the custom revalve is for the driver of that
car. It may actually make him(her) _slower_.
> Let me make it simple. Are _you_ going to be faster in your
ASP Lotus or
> in a bone stock version of the same car?
Not valid. Would I be faster in my bone stock Europa or a Europa
maxed out to the limits of the Stock rules? Yes, and for one
reason only: tires. And if you don't wanna buy autox tires, you
can run in Street Tire class.
> Why? Would _you_ be faster in
> a showroom Honda Civic or one which you had developed to the
extent of
> the "stock" rules?
Ever ask Gerry Terranova just how much he's done to his Civic? It
ain't a whole lot. "Extent of the rules" in Stock for a Civic is
NOT very costly.
> There are many of us who enjoy the sport, who are not just
going to get
> our feelings hurt and leave , just because we don't have the
cash to play
> with the big boys.
As long as you try to convince yourself that it's cash and not
skill (in both car setup and driving) that makes the difference,
you'll never play "with the big boys," even if your rich uncle
leaves you a couple million and the will requires that you
squander it on an autox car. ;<)
> Many of us can barely afford the car we have bought
> plus regular maintenance and insurance, much less extensive
testing,
> developement and modification.
I'm not sure I see your point. Is this a problem you feel is
caused by the Solo II rules?
> Most of us will race anyway, but there
> are those who will be lost because of a perception that "I will
naver be
> able to be competitive. I have a wife and a family and a
mortgage and
> I'm already working two jobs to afford what I have." Do those
people
> deserve to be sneered at and told that they don't deserve your
concern?
More to the point - I'm one of those with a wife, three kids, and
a mortgage, BTW - what DO you feel the sport owes you? I know one
individual who won Nationals (two years runnung) in a Stock class
in a car that he bought as a total from a salvage yard for
$1500.00. His total investment in the car was less than $10k, and
he drove it to Salina both years he won in it. He sold it for a
profit, too. The same individual later trophied in another Stock
class in another wrecked car that he bought and put together less
than 3 weeks before the event. In a sport where this sort of
thing is possible, I have a hard time accepting accusations such
as the ones you are making. If it costs too much to buy a new car
to autox, there is a wide variety of used ones available for very
reasonable money. Many of these are _already_ set up for autox,
and some of them are nationally competitive. If the _car_ is that
important, why not just buy one of these cars for cheap and start
winning?
> As
> the rulebook for a competitive organization, it should, to the
highest
> abilities of the drafters, be as equitable as possible to the
highest %
> of prospective competitors.
So, should we then consider the fact that the homeless are denied
a class in which they have a shot at winning? And, if you think
that's facetious, then exactly _what_ income would you consider
the lowest level our sport should attempt to accommodate?
> By
> comparing our rulebook to the vagaries of life, you are doing a
> monumental disservice to those whom you and I have charged with
> maintaining the rulebook.
No, I haven't. If you can't buy cleats or a ball, you'll probably
have some trouble playing soccer. Everything costs something.
And, regardless of the cost, there are always some folks who
don't have the money. I agree that it's not fair. I do not agree
that it can be made fair.
>The reason is that I refuse to spend the value
> of the car twice just to be competitive when I know that in a
few (max of
> 3?) years the car will be obsolete.
That's absolutely incorrect, and it's already been specifically
addressed within the last two weeks on team.net. Look at the
really competitive cars in most of the Stock classes and tell me
just how many are 3 years old or newer.
Jay
|