This controversy is starting up yet again, even as the advocates of the new
classes seem to be getting exactly what they've been demanding. I've got a few
thoughts to offer that I hope will help to put things in perspective.
Let me preface this by saying that, if the new classes are sufficiently
well-subscribed, I'm not against them. The *apparent* motivation that some of
you have for wanting these classes is, however, somewhat naive. Here are some
facts to ponder:
1. None of the classes or Categories in Solo II *requires* that you trailer
your car to an event. Quite the contrary, that's at the driver's discretion. I
know of one National Champion in a Prepared class that drove his competition
car to every event, at least through 1993. It still had most of its interior at
that time, BTW.
2. Regardless of the rules for a given class, serious autocrossers will take
maximum advantage of those rules to build a car that is optimized for autocross
in preference to street use. That is nothing but common sense. The two sets of
optima are mutually exclusive to a large extent. In Stock, a car built in this
fashion will likely still be tolerable, if not ideal, for routine street use.
In any class where ride heights and spring rates (in addition to damping rates)
are not restricted (i.e., in every Category but Stock), taking maximum
advantage of the rules to build the best possible autox car will result in a
car that is extremely unpleasant and impractical (for most of us) to operate on
the street.This is not in any way due to the "intent" of the rules, but rather
the intent of the car builder. If you're not willing to seriously compromise
the streetability of your non-Stock car in pursuit of the best possible autox
setup, you *will* put yourself at a disadvantage to anyone who has that
willingness, and no amount of self-righteous complaining (or attempts to
legislate via the rules) will make the slightest difference in the situation.
3. There is not now, nor has there ever been, nor will there ever be, a set of
rules that can ensure that the modifications an individual might make to
his(her) car for a purpose other than autox will allow that car to be
competitive if the owner decides to try our sport. See 2. above. If you're not
specifically targeting autox as you modify a car, what do you think are the
odds that the changes you make will be maximally effective for that purpose? I
claim they're close to zero.
4. As the new classes develop, the cars that eventually rise to the top will be
cars that have been specifically developed for autox competition. Their spring
rates/damping rates/ride heights will be entirely unsuitable for routine street
use, and their cost will be sufficiently high that many owners will opt to
trailer their cars solely to avoid wearing out (and risking damage to) their
investement in time, money, and sweat. If the ridiculous "street licensed"
requirement remains in SM, the serious developers that choose that class will
simply get tags for their trailered cars - it ain't hard to do - and,
otherwise, SM will have nothing to distinguish it from SP (or even STS after
awhile). I don't see any of the above as a problem for Solo II, but apparently
some of you will see it as a problem wrt your interpretation of the "intent" of
the rules. My advice: get used to it: it's been that way for a long time, and
it ain't gonna change. The rules have nothing to do with it, it's the nature of
the human competitive spirit.
Jay
|