William Schenker wrote:
> Now the coup de grace of my argument; I quote from the
> bottom of p. 97 of
> the SP rules from the 1999 SOLO Rules: "...The original
> concept of this
> catagory as made up predominantly of street-driven vehicles has been
> rendered inappropriate." Innappropriate is right! To me, this is an
> complete addmission that the SP rules are antiquated and
> should either: be
> replaced by, or at the very least, supplimented by, an
> accross the board SM
> classification, i.e., SM, SM2, SM3, etc.
>
> Adios SP! Long live SM!!!
Uh, Bill, have you read the SM rules? If you can do it in SP it's OK for SM
as well except for the emissions stuff. Since emissions-legal Hondas
routinely put out 300-400hp I don't see this as a big problem. I imagine the
AWD & RWD crowd view it as even less of a hindrance since those cars can
actually *use* that much power. The only reason SM cars are roadworthy is
because the class is so new. All the SP stuff is coming, especially now that
they have a place in Topeka.
I'm not saying this is bad. I rather like the idea of driving around town in
something very close to a real race car (I just think maybe I should
actually BUY my car off the lease before I do it).
Eric Buckley
7 STR: 98 Integra GSR
St Louis Region
|