So that's why Karl's Camaro was so quick all year - he
turbocharged it and added an independent rear. He's
sneaky that way :-)
Kent Rafferty
> Did anyone else notice the commonality with those
trophy cars? They're all
> boosted IRS cars.
>
>
> >From: "Bradley H. Lamont" <lamont@mailhost.org>
> >Reply-To: "Bradley H. Lamont" <lamont@mailhost.org>
> >To: autox@autox.team.net
> >Subject: Re: BSM/SM2
> >Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 21:11:42 -0500
> >
> >At 09:29 AM 9/21/2000, dg50@daimlerchrysler.com
said:
> >
> > >Rules, like it or not, are a necessary evil. And
hey! Look! We did a
> >pretty
> > >good job last year with SM.
> >
> >Actually Dennis, I'd have to disagree with you on
that. You had a good
> >year, and a few other people had a good year with
SM, but I really can't
> >agree that it was a success.
> >
> >Looking at the pro results, we find that 16 out of
17 trophies were won by
> >four models, and 12 out of 17 trophies were won by
just two cars. I don't
> >see this as a success.
> >
> >[The numbers in the table are the finishing trophy
positions of the
> >models.]
> >
> >Pro
> > DSM Supra S4 Camaro
Other
> >Ft Meyer 2 1
> >San Bernardino 1 2,3
> >Lemoore 2 1
> >Peru 2 1
> >Petersburg 2 1
> >Harrisburg 3 2 1
> >Wendover no SM cars...
> >Topeka 1 3 2
> >
> >Looking at the tour results, we get a bit better
mix, but 14 out of 21
> >trophies are still the same four models.
> >
> >Tour
> >
> > DSM Supra S4 Camaro
Other
> >Meridian 1
> >San Diego 1
> >Ft. Worth 1 2
> >Ayer 2 3,4 1
> >Peru 2 1
> >Bremerton 1
2,3,4
> >Pikes Peak 1
> >Nationals 5 1,6 4 2 3
> >
> > From the inside, yes, it was a success. You drove
well, won some
> >trophies, had a good competitive season with Kent
Rafferty, Dave Schotz,
> >and Karl Witt. You had fun. It was your "I-Class".
> >
> >But from the outside, I see it as a private
playground where just a few
> >cars are competitive.
> >
> >I do agree with the need for an SM class, but I
can't really say that this
> >year it worked very well or offered a chance for
very many cars to be
> >competitive.
> >
> >In your own words:
> >
> > >Level playing fields are an absolute necessity in
any successful
> > >motorsport. Other wise, why play? And "level
playing field" doesn't mean
> > >that every single car on a given day has a chance
to win; it means that
> > >every single car in the class, given enough time,
work, and effort, has a
> > >**reasonable shot of some day being competitive**.
As long as a
> >competitor
> > >feels that they still have a shot at making
themselves and their car
> > >competitive _some day_ within the scope of the
rules, then those rules
> >are
> > >Good.
> >
> >At the pros and tours, if one of they four cars
showed up, it won. The
> >only exception was at Ayer. That's 14 out of 15
events where there wasn't
> >a chance for any other cars. It doesn't seem like a
very balanced class.
> >
> >Was it because there were some excellent drivers in
SM? Of course, but how
> >does that help improve the sport if the drivers
leave other classes to
> >dominate a new class?
> >
> >I still think that SM should be a regional only
class, with no national
> >level classes. It should be a catch-all for people
who show up to events
> >with cars not prepared to SCCA rules so they don't
run DM/EM.
> >
> >Just my opinion,
> >
> >Brad
> >
>
>
_______________________________________________________
__________________
>
>
>
|