I come down firmly on the side of leaving the stock shock
rules as they are.
I think a lot of people have covered most important
aspects of this controversy, including the enforcement
problems, which are in my eyes enough to decide the
issue.
However, as cost control is alleged to be the motivation
behind the proposed change to the rules, I think it is
worth looking at this in a little more detail.
First and foremost, the originator of this thread used
his own experience driving Peter Raymond's Miata
at Nationals this year as the starting point of his
discussion. This car, unobtanium shocks and all,
was advertised for sale here a few months ago for the
princely sum of $17,500. Well, maybe I'm crazy, but
this seems to me a rather strange starting point for
someone to try to make the case that the current shock
rules are ruining the cost structure of the sport.
On a more general point, why do people seem to think
that Stock = Cheap? Maybe it is because you can
theoretically use your AutoX car as your daily driver.
But, let's face it, stock class competitors have to chase
the newest, fastest car in their classes, necessitating
expensive new vehicle purchases in many cases. Extra
sets of wheels and fresh Hoosiers aren't cheap either.
If we were talking about a case where people were putting
$50,000 worth of shocks on a $20,000 car, I could see why
the hysteria is arising, but when people are getting upset
about a few thousand dollars in shocks, well, I just don't get
it.
One of the people who posted about this topic runs locally
in my home region. He runs on street tires for god's sake,
I don't see why this should even matter to him.
Oh, yeah, I run on $125 Koni Sports.
- Nick
/// unsubscribe/change address requests to majordomo@autox.team.net or try
/// http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo
/// Partial archives at http://www.team.net/archive
|