autox
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: New SAC proposals - June FastTrack

To: Evolution <evolution-discussions@yahoogroups.com>,
Subject: Re: New SAC proposals - June FastTrack
From: Jeff Winchell <Jeff@Winchell.Com>
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2002 13:45:15 -0700
Having two classes (AS and BS) with a PAX .001 difference (for the sake of 
the argument, I'm going to assume that these were reasonable PAX numbers to 
use) seems absurd. Then there's a big jump in PAX from BS to CS and a big 
jump from AS to SS. Since SS, AS, BS, and CS are ALL RWD sports cars 
(except for the unproven tuner ponycars), I doubt there's a great reason to 
split up cars by how different they look. Just use performance.

Assuming that premise is correct (I'd definitely entertain contrasting 
opinions)... then it seems to me like the dominating BS cars (S2000 and 
Boxster) need to move up to AS so that what's left in BS will lower it's 
PAX to something more like .820.  Then hopefully we'd have something like 
these PAX values amongs the RWD sports cars:

SS .836
AS .828
BS .820
CS .812
ES .802

The RX-7TT dominated the C4's when they were both in SS, so moving the 
RX-7TT IMHO would violate the SAC's intent. I think the Boxster S has shown 
enough competitiveness to compete heads up with the Z06 so I wouldn't buy 
moving it down. OTOH, if Bob Tunnell can't make a stock car do well (E46 
M3), I don't know who could. That car should be in AS.

So I guess I'm in favor of part of Concept #1, and part of Concept #2 in 
the Fastrack.


At 02:19 PM 4/27/2002 -0500, Andy Hollis wrote:
>http://www.scca.org/news/fastrack/02-06.pdf
>
>Please send feedback regarding these proposals in either e-mail or letter
>form to seb@scca.org
>
>Let the debate begin...  ;-)

///  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


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