autox
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Proposal for SP cars to compete in P ??? (Rocky's History

To: autox@autox.team.net
Subject: Re: Proposal for SP cars to compete in P ??? (Rocky's History
From: Smokerbros@aol.com
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 12:14:30 EDT
Rocky writes:


> It would have been nice if the rulemakers in 1979 had had the vision to make
> a natural progression from Stock to SP to Prepared. It could have been done.
> It wasn't. 

When we were talking about SP becoming a National class for the first time in 
'83, our crystal ball was broken.  It was obvious that limiting SP to 
"something less than" the archaic P rules made no sense.  A good example was 
Barry Goldine's Datsun 510, on 15 X 7 wheels.  That was a common "+2" wheel 
package for street driven cars that originally came with 13s, or "+1" for 
GTIs, etc.  But those wheels would not have been legal in Prepared.  Take an 
MGB with one or two Weber DCOEs.  The Prepared rules limited that car to a 
pair of SUs.  Most of us "youngsters" that SCCA was trying to attract at that 
time (like Jinx Jordan, Steve Hoelscher, me...) knew that SUs were "old 
school" and if you had a Brit car (or 240Z, Datsun roadster, etc.), that  was 
one of the first things to go.

So, SP HAD to allow things that were in excess of P rules.  Where does the 
crystal ball come in?  We didn't put caps on wheel sizes.  No one knew that 
tires like a 215/50-13 or a 225/45-13 would ever be available. (CSP was won 
those days on 175/70-13 A001Rs, and the first CSPL championship was won on 
195/50-15 Fulda Y2000s.)  

When we realized that if cars were allowed unlimited carburetion, we also 
felt we had to allow the f.i. cars to change injectors, throttle bodies, etc. 
 Who knew that Haltech and Electromotive would come along?  Had anyone even 
heard the word "laptop" in '82?

> We've managed to succeed and grow Solo II the past 22 years despite the fact
> SP is not a natural progression from S to P. If anything, it has proven that
> "natural progression" is probably a myth that never needed to be reality. If
> someone wants to have a P car, he will build or buy a P car. It is a goal
> unto itself. The driver doesn't really feel any need to have spent any time
> in SP first.

Amen to that!

> 
> But where all this jazz about "progression" arises anew is the FasTrack
> query that began this thread, the idea of accommodating cars built to SP
> rules in Prepared. Not needed, say I. Especially not needed is a fifth
> ruleset in Prepared when we are already beleaguered by four. Nor does one
> category of cars (SP) need two places to play.
> 

Absolutely!

CHD

///          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
///


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>