> Dennis "the medication needs adjusting again" says:
Gee Jay, who the hell pissed in your cornflakes today?
> Define"new." If you're saying that folks aren't generally setting
> up their 2001 Z06s for SP (actually, I do know one competitor
> who's doing just that), so what? Most folks who buy nice new
> sports cars tenr to wait a few years before they blueprint the
> motors and such. How "new" is the current crop of SM cars?
I'd tend to agree - SP/SM is a good place where obsolete Stock class cars
can get an extra lease on life without having to go all the way to
Prepared/Modified.
But the current crop of SP cars seems really heavy with 80's cars, and
light on 90's cars, with the obvious exception of ESP.
> Take a look at the 2000 Nationals entry list. Do some statistics.
> Prove your assertion, if you can. Until then, it's just more of
> your BS.
And **I'm** the one needing medication? Pot. Kettle. Black.
But I'll take that challenge:
>From Nats 2000. Winners:
ASP: 1966 Lotus Elan (35 years old)
BSP: 1989 Corvette (12 years old)
CSP: 1990 Miata (11 years old)
(second and third place cars were 25 and 29 years old)
DSP: 1980 Fiat X 1/9 (21 years old)
ESP: 1995 BMW M3 (6 years old)
(second place car was 13 years old)
FSP: 1981 VW Sirracco (20 years old)
That's an average of 17.5 years old. The average 2000 Nats SP winning car
is old enough to drive itself.
> Again, who cares? If this "mystery person" actually wants to make
> assertions re SP vs. SM, do him (her) the courtesy of allowing
> him to do so own his own. How are we to know that you didn't
> fabricate this "mystery person?"
Because maybe they don't particularly care for being flamed perchance?
And the idea that I'd fabricate fake people and opinions is such a howler
that it's not worth denying. If "mystery man" chooses to take credit for
his idea, he will do so on his own.
Go take a time-out Jay. Let us know when you're ready to talk at the adult
table again.
DG
|