Thanks, Pat.
On our disagreement :-) -- what I mean is that the broad concept of the
category is basically carved in stone now. Just as the broad concepts of
Stock, Prep and Mod are.
But of course changes will happen, never-ending. It is extremely difficult
to undo something because it threatens the investment so many have put into
it. Less difficult to modify things over time. The difficulty there is
usually that those who begin such a process are usually not those there to
complete it, and the vision of the successor rulemakers may differ.
But can a genie be stuffed back into a bottle? Yes it can. Stock had its
overbore allowance rescinded several years ago. Overbore was allowed because
it was a cheap fix for a broken cylinder. But of course once allowed, the
top dogs all did it because it was more ccs and more horses. It was finally
realized that Stock cars, in general, do not hurt themselves in ways that
require an overbore fix very often and so in the realization that the person
made to buy a whole new block rather than overbore would be quite rare, the
SEB essayed the idea of rescinding the rule. Then, the realization that the
top dogs tended not to stay with a given car very long (even if they'd spent
the money to overbore, in a couple of years they'd sell it and get something
else -- look at how everyone in SS seems to have a new Z06 this year), and
they went ahead and stuffed that genie back in the bottle.
SP drivers, however, tend to keep their cars longer. And we trenchant bozos
in P keep ours for freakin' ever! So, you undo something in SP or P and
people will feel their "loss of investment" to a much greater extent.
--Rocky
----- Original Message -----
From: "washburn" <washburn@dwave.net>
To: <autox@autox.team.net>; "Rocky Entriken" <rocky@tri.net>
Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2001 5:56 PM
Subject: Re: Untouchable = SP
> Thanks for the history, Rocky. I didn't really know all that, but it's
> kinda funny how it all sounds just like the reasoning for STS1, 2, 3,
> SM1, 2, 3, blah, blah ..... I feel it supports my hypothesis in that it
> was made to fill a present day need (then), has lost it's way a bit, and
> should be brought back into line with it's original intent. (Making the
> other "patch" classes unecessary)
>
> The only part I dis-agree with you on is the statement below. I totally
> reject the idea that something is too established to be changed. It
> may be difficult, expensive, and time consuming but it should certainly
> not be considered off limits. This is what leads to restricted thinking
> IMO.
>
>
> Rocky Entriken wrote:
>
> > SP is too well established now to undo it. ST is what SP should have
been.
> > The real trick will be carefully preventing ST from going down the same
> > path. Your SM may well be the outlet that permits ST to resist the
> > temptations.
>
> /// autox@autox.team.net mailing list
> ///
> /// To unsubscribe send a plain text message to majordomo@autox.team.net
> /// with nothing in it but
> ///
> /// unsubscribe autox
> ///
> /// or try http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
> ///
/// autox@autox.team.net mailing list
///
/// To unsubscribe send a plain text message to majordomo@autox.team.net
/// with nothing in it but
///
/// unsubscribe autox
///
/// or try http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
///
|