Hi Team!
It is apperent to me that those whom have responded
to my 2 year results compilation didnt actually read
my "RAW" dat but read the "Bastardized" version
created by another member of Team.Net. In which he
included names( I didnt so the "classing people vs
cars" issue could not be derived from this raw data).
He also included times(from the 1999 Pro Solos) for
the National Series G Stock class. Comparing these
times creates an Apples vs Oranges situation,since the
National Series in Pro Solo for 1999 was intended to
create a "Junior Varsity" and increase attendance at
Pro Solos.
This "Bastardized" version came to the conclusion
that the current G Stock cars and the NEONS were
within the same second in times. My "RAW" data
concluded that,for 1999, the G Stock cars were an
average of .617 of a second faster. For 2000, the data
shows a difference of 2.178 sec that the G Stock cars
enjoy. The 2 year average being 1.397 seconds
advantage to the G Stock cars. I personally believe
that this differential is more that enough to separate
the cars by class. But, that just my opinion!
The fact that the STS/R rules are derived by
combinning the stock class rules and the street
prepared rules,how does one come to the conclusion
that STS/R classes are not a consideration when
forming new stock classes since the basic rules are
the same.But, thats just how my mind works!
Mark(Rainman)Darby
# 3 DS
--- Eric Buckley <ejbuckley@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Mark Darby wrote:
>
> >
> > Hi Team!
>
> Hi Mark!
>
> > I just had the question run through my mind.
> Since
> > the Type R and the DSM(whatever that stands
> for)Turbos
>
> DSM = Diamond Star Motors
>
> > are not currently allowed in STS ,with the
> proposed
> > changes,will they be? Or will the NEON no longer
> be
> > eligable for STS?
>
> Not unless they change the rules for STS/R
> eligibility.
>
> > When they created the class STS,they had the
> > where-with-all not to place the NEONS with the
> Type
> > R's or DSM Turbos,
>
> No they didn't. The Neon is listed as an "example"
> of an eligible car, but
> it is not specifically classed in ST. The Type R and
> the Eclipse/Talon Turbo
> are not specifically excluded, they just fail to
> meet the criteria.
>
> > how come they decided that the cars
> > should become classmates in their stock forms?
>
> Whose they? I think you're looking for conspiracies
> where they don't exist.
> The SCAC does not worry about classes outside of
> stock when they are
> classing stock. The Integra GS/R runs in GS against
> both your offending
> examples and is a good deal slower than a Neon in
> stock trim.
> Same can be said of the Probe/MX-6 and Camaro. There
> was a time when those
> were the "big dogs" of GS. Things change.
>
> > Any info would be greatly appreciated as it will
> be
> > included in my 37th email to the SCCA regarding
> the
> > reclassifications.
>
> Why do you think the SCCA cares about *our*
> speculation regarding what
> *they* were thinking. If you want to impress them,
> send facts. Fact is that
> the Neon and Type R are pretty close. See the recent
> post regarding winning
> times at NT events. Cars that consistently finish
> within a second of each
> other are pretty evenly matched.
>
> Otherwise, you could always come over to Street
> Touring. Love to have you.
>
> Eric Buckley
> 7STR: 98 Integra GSR
> St Louis Region
>
__________________________________________________
Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites.
http://invites.yahoo.com/
|